Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 29th July, 1960, for the Summer Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of William Edwin Wheeldon, esquire, Member for Birmingham, Small Heath, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

NEW WRITS

For Ludlow, in the room of Christopher John Holland-Martin, esquire, deceased.

For Petersfield, in the room of Captain Peter Richard Legh (commonly called Captain the Honourable Peter Legh), now Lord Newton, called up to the House of Peers.

For Carshalton, in the room of Brigadier the Right Honourable Antony Henry Head, C.B.E., M.C., called up to the House of Peers.

For Mid-Bedfordshire, in the room of the Right Honourable Alan Tindal Lennox-Boyd, C.H., called up to the House of Peers.

For Tiverton, in the room of Lieut.-Colonel the Right Honourable Derick Heathcoat Amory, T.D., called up to the House of Peers.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Mr. Wade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten Bolton, East?

NOTICES OF MOTIONS (RETURNS, ETC.)

The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means (Major Sir William AnstrutherGray): I propose to move the Motions on the Order Paper in my name tomorrow.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. P. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you written notice in the case of the missing Question. I wonder whether you can help in this matter. About a month ago I tabled a Question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies about a speech made in Nairobi by Lord Mountbatten.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman warned me that he wished to raise this matter, and I desire to deal with it, but would it not be equally convenient for the hon. Gentleman to raise it at the end of Questions and not now? There is nothing that I can do to get his Question into a position on the Order Paper today where it would be likely to be reached. The hon. Gentleman would therefore be as well off if I answered at the end of Questions instead of now.

Mr. Williams: The suggestion I wish to put is that, as it appears that a mistake has been made by the Table, it might be possible for the Question to be taken on the Order Paper today, and if you were to give such a decision on this point the Colonial Secretary could be warned in time to have his Answer ready.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to give a decision in due course, but were we to take more time to discuss this now, the Question, if put on the Order Paper, would not be reached. At least that is the reasonable probability. I could not do what the hon. Gentleman is asking me to do in any case. I have not the power to do it. I will explain what happened to the hon. Gentleman later.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Sweets (Withdrawal from Bond)

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many gallons of sweets have been withdrawn from bond in the six months ended on 30th September; and how many gallons of sweets were in bond at that, or some other convenient, date compared with the same date in 1959.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I regret that information in respect of September, 1960, is not yet available. I am however circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table of the figures which I have.

Sir R. Glyn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his Answer. I should like him to bear in mind that the duty levied on that portion of sweets represented by heavy gravity cider is a very heavy burden on that industry.

Mr. Lloyd: I will listen to any representations my hon. Friend has to make on that matter.

Following is the table:


SWEETS (BRITISH WINES)



Gallons


Quantity withdrawn from bonded warehouses for home use during the five months from 1st April 1960, to 31st August 1960
28


Quantity in bonded warehouses:—



(i) on 31st August, 1960
2,967


(ii) on 31st August, 1959
3,120


Quantity sent out for home use from licensed wineries during the five months from 1st April, 1960, to 31st August, 1960
3,067,413


Quantity in stock at wineries on date of taking stock*:—



(i) between 1st January, 1960 and 30th June, 1960
5,173,620


(ii) between 1st January, 1959 and 30th June, 1959
5,397,835


* Stock in wineries is taken every six months but not on the same date at all wineries.

Old Vic (Provincial Tour)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in view of the increased grant to the Arts Council,

no arrangements have been made to include Belfast in the Old Vic's forthcoming tour of the provinces.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Arts Council has no responsibility in Northern Ireland, which is the concern of the Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts, Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mills: Nevertheless, when the Arts Council is on the western side of the Irish Channel it might be as well if it were to get in touch with C.E.M.A. in Northern Ireland, as the Old Vic has not been in Northern Ireland for five years. Will my right hon. Friend pass this suggestion to the Arts Council?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that it would be a good idea for both bodies to get in touch with one another.

£ Sterling (Value)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current value of the £ sterling, taking the value as 20 shillings in October, 1951.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Sixteen shillings and five pence in September, 1960.

Mr. Lipton: What have all these Tory Governments done with the missing 3s. 7d.?

Mr. Lloyd: I am prepared to enter into controversy with the hon. Gentleman, particularly referring to the years 1946 to 1951, but where I think there is cause for satisfaction on both sides of the House is that since October, 1958, the fall has been only one penny.

Motor Industry

Mr. Edelman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal measures he is taking in order to assist the motor industry with its home sales pending a revival of export markets.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what approaches have been made to him by the motor-car industry for some alteration of hire-purchase restrictions.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The President of the Board of Trade and I have arranged to meet representatives of the motor industry tomorrow, when we shall discuss these matters.

Mr. Edelman: I welcome the Chancellor's action, but may I ask whether he is aware that there is profound anxiety in Coventry because of the crisis in the industry which has resulted in one worker in seven being either unemployed, or on short time, or on strike against redundancy? Will he make a statement promptly on the question of Purchase Tax, otherwise the uncertainty will cause still further difficulties, and indeed unemployment, between now and the next budget?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the uncertainty. I think that all hon. Members are aware of the difficulties in the motor industry. They are not altogether due to circumstances under our control, but we will go into these matters tomorrow with the representatives.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the motorcar industry is one of the chief weapons for helping to reduce unemployment in Scotland? How does he propose to employ more men in that industry in Scotland, when in England men are being dismissed from the industry because there is no work for them?

Mr. Lloyd: The important thing as regards the motor industry and the national interest is that its exports should be maintained at a high level, and we will talk about that matter tomorrow.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the maintenance of full employment in many districts is dependent on the motor industry and its ancillary supplies? Will he do everything in his power to maintain reasonable stability and growth in that industry? Secondly, can he say whether the motor industry is showing any signs of having second thoughts about its big investment plans which affect a number of unemployment areas?

Mr. Lloyd: As regards the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I am not aware of any such second thoughts, but I propose to have full discussions with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and representatives of the motor industry tomorrow.

Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman impress on the President of the Board of Trade the points

that I have made, because no one has given us greater assurances than has his right hon. Friend about the future—the happy future according to him—that awaits the west of Scotland due to the incursion of the motor car industry?

Mr. Lloyd: I assure the hon. Gentleman that both the President of the Board of Trade and I are well aware of the importance to the national economy of the motor industry.

Waste Paper (Disposal)

Mr. Costain: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the recommendations of a Working Party, set up by his predecessor in June, 1959, on the question of disposal of waste paper from Her Majesty's Government sources; and what has been done with the Government's confidential waste papers in the meantime.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir: it would not be in the public interest to do so. But I can tell my hon. Friend that I have accepted recommendations that in future all confidential waste paper shall be collected by official transport from the many points at which it arises, and either shredded or pulped under official supervision. Special steps were taken last year, with the co-operation of the trade, to guard against leakages while a fully comprehensive scheme was being worked out.

Mr. Costain: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that satisfactory Answer. Will he give an assurance that only firms which have facilities, or which are connected with mills with arrangements and facilities for shredding, will be asked to tender?

Mr. Lloyd: I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

University Places

Mr. Boyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applicants possessing the necessary qualifications for admission to a British university have not been accepted for a university place this autumn.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This information is not available.

Mr. Boyden: In view of the serious nature of the problem, could not the information be obtained so that the situation may be kept under review?

Mr. Lloyd: It is difficult to obtain the information. For one thing, a number of students make applications to a number of universities. Secondly, the term "necessary qualifications" has different interpretations in different places. But I am prepared to look at the matter to see whether further information can be given.

Universities (Developments)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the memorandum of the Association of University Teachers, entitled "Some problems of university development", a copy of which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland; and whether he proposes to encourage the University Grants Committee to develop rapidly new universities planned as a whole.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The question of further university expansion, additional to the £60 million building programme for 1960–63 which is already under way, is being considered. The memorandum referred to will be studied.

Mr. Boyden: Will the Chancellor publish the Report which the University Grants Committee has recently sent him, together with his comments and those of his colleague, the Minister of Education?

Mr. Lloyd: I should like notice of that question.

Council Houses (Cost)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer following the raising of interest rates on Public Works Loan Board loans to 6⅛ per cent., what will be the eventual total cost of a council house costing £1,600 to build after repayment over 60 years.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The total amount repayable on a loan of £1,600 over 60 years at 6⅛ per cent. is £6,042.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that it is this fantastic interest burden which has halved council house building in the last six years? As the Minister of Housing and Local Government admitted a few days ago that only councils would build houses to let, and as people cannot afford to buy their own houses, will the right hon. Gentleman sympathetically consider giving cheaper

housing loans to help the people on the long waiting lists?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of the concern about this matter. The latest increase makes a difference of £111, but I think that the matter has to be considered in the whole context of investment in the public sector. I have said that I will lay a White Paper on that topic in the near future. I think that these matters might be better debated on that White Paper.

Mr. H. Wilson: Does not this figure come as a shock even to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? In view of the high cost of local authority building and the effect on industrial investment, will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that his 6 per cent. Bank Rate is only piling up a lot of hot money which we do not want, and do not need, and cannot afford, and take some steps to deal with it?

Mr. Lloyd: Those statements are matters for debate.

National Theatre

Mr. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet reached any decision on the proposal to build a National Theatre in London.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Jeger: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that over a number of years Parliament has come to a decision about the building of a National Theatre, so has the London County Council and so has the Arts Council? What is it that now prevents him from making up his mind on this very essential matter?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware that this matter has been outstanding for a long time. I have recently been examining it. I am to meet the joint council of the National Theatre some time in the next few weeks and discuss the matter with it. I certainly think that this is a matter upon which a decision should be given.

Cost of Living

Mr. Holt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that the cost of living does not go up as a result of higher prices for fuel and transport.

Mr. Collick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is now taking to reduce the cost of living and bring down prices.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Movements in the cost of living are caused by many factors, among which, of course, are the costs of fuel and transport.
The general objective of the Government's economic policy is to keep prices stable by maintaining a balance between demand and resources. But, even when such a balance is secured, stability of prices will still largely depend on the efforts of all concerned to ensure that the rate of increase in wages and salaries does not exceed the rate of increase in national productivity.

Mr. Holt: May I take it that the Answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just given is, as far as my Question is concerned, precisely nil?

Mr. Lloyd: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question is that we are going to keep stability of prices. We have to equate demand and resources.

Mr. Collick: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his predecessor repeatedly urged that there should be a reduction in prices, but there has, in fact, been no such noticeable reduction? Is the Chancellor aware that the answer which he gave to the previous question completely abandoned what I thought was the Government's policy, that of bringing about a reduction in prices?

Mr. Lloyd: We have certainly not abandoned that, and I shall be very happy to see it come about. What we have done over the last two years has been to stabilise prices. I say frankly to the hon. Gentleman that what concerns me at the moment is whether we shall be able to maintain that stability. I think that that is the problem which confronts all of us in all quarters of the House.

Mr. P. Williams: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say how an increase in the price of coal will tend to sell more of it?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a rather different issue.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why he continu-

ally refers to wages and salaries without reference to profits and capital gains and so on? Can he further tell us what effect the recently announced increase by the Road Hauliers Association will have on fares and transport costs generally?

Mr. Lloyd: It certainly will not have a good effect. No increase in price will have a good effect. The real answer to the problem is to increase the total national product and keep productivity ahead of the increase. I would certainly include in any request for restraint both profits and prices.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is it the Chancellor's point that if a man pledges himself to go forward he fulfils his pledge by proving that he is standing still?

Mr. Lloyd: It is very much better to stand still than to go backwards.

Credit Restrictions

Mr. Rankin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce some relaxation of credit restrictions in order to overcome the present diminution in business activity; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now reduce the Bank Rate.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have no announcement to make to the House about relaxation of credit restrictions.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we were told yesterday that Lanarkshire County Council had floated a loan on the London market at 6 per cent.? This is a loan of £5 million, redeemable in 1980. Does he realise that the £5 million will cost Lanarkshire £6 million in total, and £300,000 per year? Is he aware that this is bound to affect industrial activity due to the high rating position that will ensue in Lanarkshire—and also throughout Scotland, because it is common. In view of that and in order to help business activity, will he reconsider the question of reducing the Bank Rate or giving local authorities the advantage of the Public Works Loan Board facilities?

Mr. Lloyd: I think it is better that Lanarkshire should pay the market rate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I certainly think so. I believe that if one


starts to distort the economy by preferential systems one does not help Lanarkshire or anybody else. As to the question of the reduction in the Bank Rate, that is not usually dealt with by Question and Answer across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that the present extremely high Bank Rate is doing anything either to encourage exports or restrain imports, or to increase the national product, which he has just said he wants to do? If not, what is it achieving?

Mr. Lloyd: It is playing its part in helping to equate demand with resources. If there is excessive demand, there will be a shortage of goods, labour and material, and as soon as that happens, prices go up, and then one gets inflation.

Pensions

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to introduce a new Pensions Increases Bill.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have no intention at present to introduce such a Bill.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. and learned Friend kindly bear in mind that there are masses of people living on small fixed incomes who are just as entitled to an increase as those whom we hope will get an increase by means of the old-age pension? Is it not a fact that all these people were promised a share in the prosperity of the country at the time of the General Election?
Might I also ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he has yet replied to my letter offering to come and see him, as I do not want at this very early stage after he has become Chancellor to have to go and camp outside the Treasury, because that might be rather embarrassing?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure about that.
With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I am aware of the difficulties of those who live on small fixed incomes. With regard to my hon. Friend's letter, I should welcome very much a chance to have a thorough discussion of these matters with her.

Dame Irene Ward: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Decontrolled Properties

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware of the difficulties of tenants of decontrolled properties whose three-year agreements with landlords expire this summer; and what action he proposes to take to protect them for a further period where landlords refuse to negotiate reasonable new agreements.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) and the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) on 26th July.

Mrs. Butler: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite what he said then, there are already many decontrolled tenants with low incomes who are faced either with notice to quit or having to pay exorbitant rents, and that in the London area where many of them have to live and work there is no alternative accommodation available and they are desperately looking to him to relieve the acute anxiety under which they are living by taking emergency legislative action to protect them?

Mr. Brooke: I am not going to reimpose control on the premises which have been out of rent control for the past three years, but I have during the Recess issued a circular to the local authorities in the London area giving certain guidance.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that neither that circular nor anything else that he has said gives any protection at all to these people? Is it not a plain fact that all we can say to people in this position is that under present legislation they are quite helpless in facing their landlords?

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. It is perfectly possible for tenants to negotiate with their landlords—

Mr. Manuel: Come off it.

Mr. Brooke: —and those who have sought to do so have in many cases been able to negotiate lower rents.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many communications he has received during the last three months from tenants in Greater London, or from hon. Members on their behalf, alleging excessive rent demands by landlords of decontrolled properties.

Mr. H. Brooke: Hon. Members forwarded 67 complaints and tenants 202. It would be wrong to assume that the rent demands complained of were necessarily excessive.

Mr. Robinson: In view of the fact that the great majority of tenants who are held to ransom by landlords take the view that they are helpless in the light of the Rent Act and consequently would not dream of writing to anyone, are not these figures indicative of a great measure of hardship in the London area and do not they show that the situation demands action and legislation from the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Brooke: I would say, in all seriousness, that tenants who think they are being asked unreasonable rents should not, as a first course of action, write to a Member of Parliament or anyone else, but should start negotiating with their landlords. We have had dozens of cases in which it proved quite possible for landlord and tenant to come to an agreement once negotiations had been begun.

London

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will appoint a special committee to investigate and report on the housing problem in London.

Mr. H. Brooke: No, Sir.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that for a very large number of Londoners he has aggravated the housing problem into what is now a heartbreaking scandal? Why is he reluctant to discover and publish the real facts of the present very tragic situation, for it is a very tragic situation for very many people in London?

Mr. Brooke: I am very anxious to handle these matters aright, but I cannot see that any purpose would be served by appointing a special committee at this stage.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that one of the pieces of advice that he gave to people in these difficulties was that they should move out of London, and that many of us feel that he could not have given that advice if he was aware of the circumstances of many of the tenants? Possibly a committee to make him better informed about the matter might be useful.

Mr. Brooke: I think I am probably as fully informed as anybody is about the situation in London. It is perfectly true that some tenants are not in a position to move out of London and ought not to be pressed to do so. On the other hand, there are others who have been living in the centre of London at low rents who could have moved out and thus provided further accommodation in Central London for the people who are working there now but are having to travel long distances.

Mr. Mellish: Does not this policy amount to the fact that people were told to move out of the centre of London, but they have to come back for work and now we get more congestion on the roads and more root causes of unhappiness? Why should not we have an inquiry and let the whole world know? Why should not we have an independent inquiry and find out what is the position?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Brooke: There is nothing further that an independent inquiry at this stage could reveal.

Mr. Mellish: Why not?

Mr. Brooke: Because all the facts that are relevant are sufficiently known already.

Mr. Manuel: To whom?

Mr. Brooke: These are policy questions which have to be decided.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What can a back bench Member do in a case of this kind, when the Minister is refusing an inquiry and when he says that all the facts are known, and when in fact only recently the same Minister appealed to Members of Parliament to give him more information?

Mr. Speaker: It would be necessary for me to have more information in order to discover how that is a point of order.

Mr. Lipton: In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Local Authorities (House Purchase)

Mr. Reynolds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is the total annual cost of subsidies paid to local authorities on houses purchased by them to facilitate derequisitioning; on how many houses these subsidies are being paid; and what is the average annual payment per house.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): At 30th September, 1960, the total amount of contributions approved for dwellings bought or leased by local authorities to facilitate de-requisitioning was £982,000 per annum. These contributions relate to 15,330 dwellings, the average annual amount per dwelling being about £64.

Mr. Reynolds: In view of the fact that nearly £1 million is being contributed by the Government because of instructions given to local authorities to purchase houses, will the Minister consider making a similar contribution to assist local authorities to purchase houses under the terms of the recent circular in order to avoid evictions?

Sir K. Joseph: No, that is not considered necessary.

Rent Act, 1957 (Surveys)

Mr. Reynolds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what information he has obtained on the operation of the Rent Act, 1957, by means of surveys carried out by, or on behalf of, his Department.

Mr. H. Brooke: I have now received the report of a sample survey carried out by the Social Survey Unit of the Central Office of Information. I propose to publish it. Among the conclusions which it suggests are that the number of houses decontrolled by reason of

rateable value has been smaller than was forecast, whereas the number decontrolled on vacant possession has been larger. It confirms the view that generally speaking the new rents charged after decontrol were moderate, and that sitting tenants were given favourable treatment.

Mr. Reynolds: Can the Minister please explain why it has taken a Question on the Order Paper to secure the publication of a report on which work was started three years ago?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member seems to know a great deal about this, but the survey could not be completed until 1959, and I received the report only just before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Albu: In view of the confirmation in the report of what many of us know, that one of the most serious problems, creeping decontrol, is caused by vacant possession, does the Minister propose to do anything about this, as the number of houses under control is falling all the time and increasing the difficulties?

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. The Government do not propose to legislate to alter the provisions in the Rent Act about the decontrol of houses with vacant possession.

Tenants (Eviction)

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he has taken to deal with the practices of certain landlords and their agents regarding the eviction of tenants, as described to him by the hon. Member for Deptford.

Mr. H. Brooke: The hon. Member will be aware that action has already been taken by the Registrar of Friendly Societies in the particular case to which he drew attention. For the protection of immigrants who may be unfamiliar with England I am seeking to arrange for an extension of the advice offered to them before they embark on house purchase.

Sir L. Plummer: Does not the Minister appreciate that it is comparatively easy to deal with tricksters of this kind but very difficult to deal with the hardship caused by the decontrol for which he is responsible; and that in fact all sorts of perfectly decent but quite simple


people are being robbed of their rights, are being dispossessed or are being forced to pay exorbitant rents? Will not the right hon. Gentleman look at this situation, which needs his attention, particularly in London?

Mr. Brooke: I am very anxious that local authorities and other bodies should give tenants the fullest information about the provisions of the Rent Act and I am not going back on decontrol.

Security of Tenure

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the results of the consultations he has had with metropolitan boroughs, with a view to ensuring security of tenure to tenants who have been induced to move from one part of a house to another.

Mr. H. Brooke: I assume that the hon. Member refers to statutory tenants. There have been no consultations directed specially to this point. Section 17 of the Rent Act, 1957, provides means of ensuring security where a statutory tenant previously occupied the accommodation taken over.

Sir L. Plummer: The Minister cannot have all the information. Does not he know that the metropolitan boroughs would be able to give him advice and statistical proof of the effect that all this is having? Why does not he want to get this very valuable experience?

Mr. Brooke: I certainly have not pushed the metropolitan boroughs away from me. I received a deputation from five of them and I also received representations direct from the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is the Minister aware that what would happen in a case like this is that an elderly or infirm tenant occupying an upstairs part of the house might be persuaded, with the offer of slightly more attractive premises, or more convenient premises downstairs, to move the tenancy; and then would find out, when it was too late, that the premises had become decontrolled; and the tenant would be turned out or have the rent raised without a limit? That is the result of the Act for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible. What is he Prepared to do about it?

Mr. Brooke: I have repeatedly said that I want local authorities and all concerned to make the fullest information available about the provisions of the Rent Act.

Stoke-on-Trent

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many houses to let have been built by private builders in Stoke-on-Trent in 1958 and 1959.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend's records do not enable him to give the information asked for. He is however aware that some private building to let has taken place in Stoke-on-Trent during the past two years.

Mrs. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these are so few that they can be counted on the fingers of one hand and that so long as his right hon. Friend takes up the attitude which he does and the Chancellor of the Exchequer maintains his attitude regarding high interest rates, the people of Stoke-on-Trent and other cities will be condemned to live in appalling conditions; because local authorities cannot build and private builders want to make the largest profits possible out of their own building?

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend would welcome more building to let, but political attacks on landlords do not exactly encourage this.

Circular No. 45/60

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many local authorities have acted on the advice contained in paragraph 8 of Circular No. 45/60.

Mr. Mellish: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the number of applications submitted to his Department for compulsory purchase orders by councils in London and Middlesex, as a consequence of his suggestion to local authorities to make such applications where they consider landlords are asking unfair rent of their tenants.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government


and Minister for Welsh Affairs what response he has had to his circular No. 45/60 of 18th August on the subject of the Rent Act, 1957, which was addressed to housing authorities in Greater London; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Brooke: Three metropolitan borough councils and one Middlesex borough council have taken action and, in all, have submitted five compulsory purchase orders, two of which have subsequently been withdrawn following further negotiations between the tenants and their landlords.

Mr. Pavitt: Does the Minister think that number is adequate in view of the large number of letters about specific cases sent by hon. Members on this side of the House? Can the Minister say how long it takes from the intimation of a compulsory purchase order until the confirmation? What advice does he give to local authorities in the meantime so far as tenants confronted with eviction are concerned?

Mr. Brooke: I cannot say whether the number is adequate. The local authorities are free to submit all the compulsory purchase orders they think fit. There is a further Question on the Order Paper about the length of time.

Mr. Mellish: That is the whole point. Local authorities are entirely free. Does the Minister believe that Tory borough councils in London and Middlesex will put compulsory purchase orders on private property when they have declared themselves against such a principle?

Mr. Brooke: I am certainly aware that all Tory borough councils will do their duty in every circumstance.

Mr. Robinson: Is not the Minister aware that many Tory borough councils have already expressed their intention to make no submissions to him for compulsory purchase orders and is it not perfectly clear that this circular is a useless bit of window dressing which does nothing to assist in the solution of the problem?

Mr. Brooke: The circular has been very successful in its effect already. As I have said, in two cases agreement has been reached between tenant and landlord—[HON. MEMBERS: "TWO?"]—yes

two out of five. No local authority has informed me that it does not intend to take any action in any circumstances.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result of the circular he sent out, a number of Tory borough councils have intimated to landlords that they were considering making compulsory purchase orders? Further, is he aware that one London borough has in fact intimated to landlords that it proposed to do so and as a result one of the worst type of landlords in London has capitulated, in Chelsea, to the tenants?

Mr. Brooke: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I think the effect of this circular has been very salutary. It is most significant that, although the circular came out two months ago, only five compulsory purchase orders have so far been submitted.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will now amplify his statement contained in paragraph 7 of Circular 45/60; and what proportion of the burden of dealing with swindlers in the housing market is to be borne by local authorities.

Mr. H. Brooke: The circular seems to have been well understood, and I have nothing to add to it. As for the burden, that depends upon the price local authorities have to pay if they buy property, and upon the rents they charge. No grant is payable.

Mr. Pavitt: Can the Minister amplify his phrase regarding swindlers? Does he class as swindlers people who buy property for the sole purpose of selling it again quickly at a large profit?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think I can define the word "swindlers" any better than a dictionary can. What I am concerned about is enabling local authorities to take appropriate action, and that they have been doing in those cases where they thought fit. They have been perfectly free to act as they thought right.

Mr. Brockway: Why has the Minister limited the dispatch of this circular to the Greater London area? Is he aware that in many other boroughs there is a


need almost as great as that in London? Is he aware that in Slough there are between 400 and 500 cases in which rents have been increased by 100 per cent., including those of old-age pensioners? Will he take some action on behalf of those people as well as those in London?

Mr. Brooke: It is not a question of whether rents have been increased, but of whether the landlord is asking extortionate rents. I addressed the circular to the London and Greater London local authorities because hardly any complaints had been received at that time from the rest of England and Wales, but I have said in public that if any other local authority finds cases in which it thinks it ought to submit compulsory purchase orders they will be carefully considered.

Peterlee New Town

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what suspension of housing construction has occurred at Peterlee new town; why there is a gap between the existing building schemes and the provision of new contracts; and what action he intends to take to ensure that building proceeds in accordance with the plans of his Department.

Mr. H. Brooke: As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, there have been difficulties on current contracts, which are behind schedule. I understand, however, that work is continuing and that the Development Corporation has in hand further schemes for 700 houses on which a start can be made in the next few months.

Mr. Shinwell: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree, in view of the information conveyed to him by myself and by others, that the time has come for a thorough investigation into this situation?

Mr. Brooke: I am anxious about the situation and I am particularly anxious not to say anything today in answer to the right hon. Member's Question which might make things more difficult, but he can be sure that I have been watching the position very closely and shall continue to do so.

Rents (Decontrol)

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will give an assurance that there will be no further decontrol of rents during the present Parliament.

Mr. H. Brooke: The assurance has already been given that the Government will take no further action to decontrol rents in this Parliament.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that, while the Rent Act remains un-amended, creeping decontrol is continuing every day? Is he aware from information sent to him that a great many landlords are seeking to abuse and evade the provisions of the Rent Act in order to obtain vacant possession, thus causing intolerable hardship to tenants? Will he therefore recognise the necessity for legislation to stop creeping decontrol?

Mr. Brooke: What the hon. Member is now asking is that we should amend the Rent Act backwards. That I am not prepared to do, nor am I prepared to accept his statement that a great many landlords are abusing their powers.

Tenants (Three-year Leases)

Mr. Pargiter: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that in many cases upon the expiry of three-year leases many landlords are now issuing notices to quit without the option of renewal of the tenancy, in order to avoid the possibility of being subject to a compulsory purchase order in the event of an excessive rent being demanded; and whether he will extend the same protection to a new tenant as may be extended to an existing tenant by the compulsory purchase procedure.

Mr. H. Brooke: If a tenant is threatened with homelessness as the result of an unreasonable refusal on the part of the landlord to consider a renewal of his tenancy agreement, I am prepared to consider a compulsory purchase order on the property from the local authority, but as a general rule I would not do so in the case of a new tenant who had entered into an agreement to pay the rent in question.

Mr. Pargiter: Having regard to the very great shortage of accommodation, is the right hon. Gentleman aware—I am sure he must be—of the very large number of new tenants forced to accept exorbitant terms because they cannot get a roof over their heads in any other way?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think the survey which I shall publish will bear out the force of the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, at any rate up to 1959, but in any case, where new agreements have recently been entered into between landlords and tenants, I am quite sure that it would not be right to interfere with their terms.

Dame Irene Ward: In relation to the last statement made by my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether he is circulating all local authorities to that effect, in view of the fact that they may be aware of what their powers are but do not feel called upon to use them in the terms he has announced?

Mr. Brooke: I was not proposing to send a further circular to all local authorities. I think all local authorities throughout England and Wales will be aware of the first circular I sent to local authorities in London and Greater London and I am sure that these Questions and Answers in the House today will draw attention to the matter throughout England and Wales.

Rents (Decontrolled Tenants)

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in view of the rapidly increasing profits of property companies as a result of the Rent Act, 1957, he will consider introducing legislation to limit rents demanded from decontrolled tenants.

Mr. H. Brooke: No, Sir.

Mr. Skeffington: Does not the Minister think that he is grossly neglecting his duty in so far as tenants are concerned? Is he aware that even in yesterday's Evening Standard there was an article headed
London's Rents.
Can the crazy spiral go higher?
Is he aware that in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for

Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) a property company owning so-called working-class dwellings made a profit of only £1,200 before the Rent Act and this year it has declared a profit of £63,000? Is he not going to do something to stop this shameful exploitation of tenants?

Mr. Brooke: I am perfectly well aware that before the Rent Act it was extremely difficult for many companies and many individuals to keep their property in repair and make any profit at all but, as I have repeatedly said today, the Government are not going to reimpose any form of rent control.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that about half-an-hour ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer was talking about the need for restraint in claims for wages and salaries? Why is it that only people who get incomes from work and not from property are asked to exercise restraint?

Mr. Brooke: In the vast majority of cases the landlords have been exercising restraint. The sample survey which I am proposing to publish will prove that beyond question. In those few cases where landlords have been asking extortionate rents I have indicated to the local authority the course it can follow.

Mr. Doughty: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of people in the country will support him in the courageous and necessary action he has taken to bring this situation to an end so that houses are not under-occupied but are properly repaired and the proper distribution of population begins again?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend.

Improvement Grants

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many landlords received improvement grants in 1959; how many of them were owner-occupiers; and how many owned more than one house.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend is unable to provide the information asked for. Separate figures showing the numbers of improvement grants made to landlords and owner-occupiers respectively are not available before the beginning of this year.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that landlords' associations are writing to their members telling them of the things they can extract from the various Acts of Parliament passed, while owner-occupiers are unaware of them? Will he take steps to make known to owner-occupiers as well as to landlords all the benefits they can get from these Acts?

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend takes every opportunity to make these facts known, and the dramatically increasing trend of improvement grants shows that the information is being heeded.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Euston Station

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what reply he has sent to the letter, sent to him in July by the Royal Fine Art Commission, concerning the proposed removal of the Doric Arch, Great Hall and Shareholders' Meeting Room at Euston Station; and if he will make a statement.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend has not yet replied to this letter because he is still considering the matter in consultation with the other Ministers concerned.

Mr. Wyatt: The Government have been considering this matter for nearly a year now. What is the point of having a Royal Fine Art Commission if the Government are going to disregard its recommendations which, in this case, are to keep that historic monument at Euston Station? Why waste the time of the distinguished gentlemen advising the Government if they take no notice?

Sir K. Joseph: I think the length of time shows what respect the Government are paying to the Royal Fine Art Commission and its recommendations.

Mr. K. Robinson: Will the Minister consult particularly with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works who now discovers, contrary to the reply which he gave in this House before the Recess, that he does possess powers to contribute towards the cost of replacing this arch?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES BASES, UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement about the revised agreement on the use of the United States bases in the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As I told the House last summer, discussions were undertaken at the official level to review the arrangements relating to the use by United States forces of bases in this country. I took the opportunity of my visit to the United States to review these arrangements personally with President Eisenhower. I am satisfied that the position agreed is satisfactory from our point of view.

Mr. Warbey: Is the Prime Minister aware that this position is entirely unsatisfactory for the people of this country, who are gravely concerned about the use of American bases here? Is he further aware that what the Opposition asked for last July—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"]—was that the agreement should be revised so as to ensure that there should be British political control over any possible use of these bases for provocative purposes, and that this revised agreement should be published? Will the Prime Minister undertake to do this?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: Is not the Prime Minister going to publish anything about the terms of the new agreement—if it is a new agreement—which results from these conversations? Does he not recall that in statements which he and the Home Secretary made in the House last summer it was indicated that something would be published about the results of the conversations in Washington? Will not he fulfil this undertaking to the people?

The Prime Minister: It would not be suitable to publish the details of these working arrangements, but we have been carefully through them and I am quite sure that they are satisfactory and give us all that is proper and right.

Mr. Healey: Is the Prime Minister aware that when the House discussed


these matters in the summer great concern was shown on both sides at the fact that it had been proved that it was possible for military persons—and foreign military persons at that—to take actions of great political importance from bases in this country without reference to those who carry political responsibility in Britain? Can he at least give the House some general principles governing the agreement, and assure the House that this is no longer possible, as it was in the summer? In particular, can he assure the House, in terms, that he is now in a position to take direct responsibility for all flights of foreign military aircraft from bases in this country?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am satisfied that under the arrangements, as we have been through them, everything that takes place will be fully known to the responsible political heads of both countries.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the Prime Minister agree that there is some room for flexibility in this matter, particularly in view of the development of Polaris and the nuclear submarine? Is not he aware that there are grave doubts in the United States and in other quarters about the vulnerability of the static sites? In those circumstances, may I beg him not to close his mind to a possible revision of this matter?

The Prime Minister: That is a different question. What we have been discussing are the flights, and not the question of Polaris.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether Her Majesty's Government are informed of all reconnaissance flights from this country before they take place, and whether they have any right of veto over such flights?

The Prime Minister: I think it would be quite wrong to publish the details of the arrangements we have made, but I think I can say that we are fully informed on both sides of everything that is proposed to be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONCKTON COMMISSION (REPORT)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the Report of the Monckton Commission.

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government accept the recommendations of the Monckton Commission.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Report of the Monckton Commission.

Mr. Wade: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the Report of the Monckton Commission.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government have expressed their warm gratitude to Lord Monckton and his colleagues for this important Report which provides a valuable analysis of a very complex problem. The Report is now being studied and will be considered at the Federal Review Conference which is to be held shortly.

Mr. Wyatt: Will not the Prime Minister say whether the Government adhere to the fundamental principle that secession may be permitted to any one of the three territories after a period of five years, or whether he eventually intends to shelve this Report in the same way as he shelved the Devlin Report?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This is a Report of an advisory character, covering an immense field; it consists of a majority report and a minority report, and it has a great number of reservations on certain aspects. It is not a question of accepting it or declining it; it is a question of discussing it with all those concerned, once more expressing our gratitude to those who have worked so hard to give us this excellent starting off ground.

Mr. Dugdale: is the Prime Minister aware that his best method of expressing gratitude to the Monckton Commission is to accept its recommendations?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the right hon. Member has read the Report in detail; but it is not a question of accepting a report or declining to accept a report. It covers a very great range, and there are a great number of reservations. Sometimes it merely makes suggestions and proposals that it might be done this way or that way. All that must be considered by the Governments at the review. That is the purpose of the Report.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that, while many of the recommendations are addressed to all five Governments concerned, there is one particularly important one which is addressed to Her Majesty's Government only—the recommendation that they should make a declaration of intention to consider a request from the Government of a territory to secede from the Federation? Will he inform the House whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to accept this recommendation?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We shall consider the Report as a whole at the Conference.

Mr. Gaitskell: In that case may I ask whether the Prime Minister has read or seen a report of the broadcast made by Sir Roy Welensky, which was published in The Times on 12th October, which relates to the important matter of the right of secession? Is the Prime Minister aware that in the course of that broadcast Sir Roy Welensky said that he had received from the Prime Minister assurances that secession was not for consideration by the Commission? Will the Prime Minister make the position clear? Did he in fact give Sir Roy Welensky that assurance? If so, what is his attitude to the Commission's recommendations?

The Prime Minister: That supplementary question does not seem to arise out of any of the Questions on the Order Paper. Had it been put down I would have answered it in detail. The statement no doubt was issued on the question whether the terms of reference had or had not been exceeded. The Government issued a statement on 11th October, which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I think it would be more appropriate to deal with this matter in my speech on Tuesday next, for it is rather difficult to deal with it in answer to a supplementary question. I would ask the indulgence of the House to allow me to deal with it in detail in my speech.

Mr. Gaitskell: I appreciate what the Prime Minister has said, and agree that some of these matters can be dealt with more appropriately in debate. Would he, however, assure us that he will then deal with the point that I have raised about Sir Roy Welensky's broadcast?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I was intending to deal with this question of the terms of reference and the point that has been raised of any assurance which I may have given.

Mr. Thomson: Has the Prime Minister noted that, although there are reservations in the Report, the major recommendations of the Commission are exactly in line with the point of view expressed to the Government over a long time by such non-party bodies as the Church of Scotland, and by the Opposition in this House? Will not the Government correct their past mistakes by accepting these major recommendations now?

The Prime Minister: I repeat that this matter would be better dealt with in a debate than by Question and Answer in this way. I should have thought that the one absolutely clear result of the Report is the feeling held by all the members, with the exception of the signatories to the minority report, that from the political, social and economic points of view it would be a fatal and tragic error if the Federation were broken up. All the Commission's recommendations, including this one, are calculated not to destroy the Federation but to sustain it.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable body of opinion which considers that the recommendations of the Commission referring to secession have gone outside the letter of its terms of reference? If this is so—there may well be Ministerial opinion to support this point of view—should they not, first, be rejected by the Government, and, secondly, deprecated as leading to a reduction of investment in the Federation in the intervening period?

The Prime Minister: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to deal with the terms of reference by a speech rather than by attempting to do so in answer to a supplementary question. That course proved agreeable to hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Wade: Does the Prime Minister agree that the reference in the Report to the need for the right to secede introduces an element of realism into this very


difficult problem? Will he give an assurance to the House that Her Majesty's Government will not put any obstacles in the way of this being discussed at the Constitutional Conference?

The Prime Minister: The object of the Constitutional Conference is that the whole problem should be discussed. The Constitutional Review was due to take place in any event. I believe that, in spite of all the difficulties, the Report will help the Conference to do its work. It is in the spirit of trying to find an answer to this formidable question that I hope that all the Governments will approach their task.

Mr. Deedes: Do I understand from what the Prime Minister said that we are to have a day before the Federal Review to discuss the Report?

The Prime Minister: No. I suppose that everything is in order in the debate on the Gracious Speech. I merely asked that I should be allowed to deal with this particular point by a speech rather than in answer to supplementary questions.

Following is the information:

Oral Answers to Questions — STATEMENT BY HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT

Monckton Commission Report

The Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland has expressed his view that the Monckton Commission's recommendations in Chapter 16 of their Report go beyond their terms of reference.

2. The terms of reference of the Commission, as agreed between the Governments, were not intended to embrace the question of the dissolution of the Federation, or the secession of any of the component Territories. Her Majesty's Government made it clear that they were unwilling to extend the terms of reference so as to cover this, since they considered that it would not he in accord with the accepted objects of the Federal Constitution Review. This was made clear by the British Prime Minister in the House of Commons. The Federal Prime Minister was therefore justified in assuming that, in view of these terms of reference, the Commission would not recommend secession or the dissolution of the Federation.

3. The Commission have in fact recommended that the Territories should be given a qualified option to secede in certain defined circumstances at some future date. However, they have not recommended the dissolution of the Federation nor that any of the Territories should secede. Their Report strongly stresses the advantages of maintaining a federal association, and examines a number of methods of making this more generally acceptable. It is in this context and with this purpose that the Commission have made their recommendation

4. Whatever view may be taken as to whether this recommendation was within the terms of reference of the Commission, it is clear that the Review Conference must be free to discuss this and any other relevant issue.

11th October, 1960.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Speaker: This might be a convenient moment for the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) to raise his point of order with me.

Mr. P. Williams: Mr. Speaker, as I tried to do earlier, I should like to raise a point of order. It is the problem of the missing Question. It was a Question which I tabled roughly a month ago to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject of Lord Mountbatten's speech in Nairobi. I tabled the Question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies because I was under the impression that the speech had been sanctioned by him.
The Question was subsequently transferred to the Minister of Defence. In due course, it was transferred back to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I do not know whether this indicates any lack of decision as to who was responsible for Lord Mountbatten on that occasion.
The real point of substance is that at the end of the day not only has the Question gone backwards and forwards a number of times, but it has even fallen off the Order Paper altogether. It is not on the Order Paper today, the day for which it was originally tabled. In a case like this, is there any way in which a back bench Member has any redress or any way of getting his Question answered, or even on to the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that I have this quite straight in my mind. I thought that the hon. Member was saying that his Question had fallen off the Order Paper altogether. I do not think that that is quite right. It has fallen off today's Order Paper, but it is on tomorrow's Order Paper.

Mr. Williams: My point is that the Question was due to be transferred back


to the Secretary of State for the Colonies today. In fact, it has not appeared on today's Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: It is a rather complicated tale to tell the House and the hon. Member. I will try not to take too long.
I should make it clear that this is not a transfer in any ordinary sense, because the Chair always emphasises that transfer in the ordinary sense is not a matter for the Chair. When the hon. Member sent in his Question in the Recess it looked to those concerned to be out of order if addressed to the Minister to whom the hon. Member had then addressed it. They, therefore, addressed the Question to a different target—another Minister—and wrote to tell the hon. Member what they had done, and why.
It then transpired, the circumstances being unusual, that the hon. Member was right and the Table was wrong. The Table thereupon reapplied the hon. Member's Question to the target to which he had originally addressed it.
I am not sure that it is usually the task of the Table—indeed, I am sure that it is not—to put a date to a particular Question for it to be put down, but in these circumstances I accept that it would have been better, as they were putting it back to the original target, had they remembered to change the date. They did not. That is what has happened. I am not sure how the practical result works out for the hon. Member. In the circumstances, I am not sure that he would have been much better off if the Question had been down for to-day instead of in its present position for tomorrow.

Mr. Williams: Further to that point or order. When Questions are being transferred, is there any method by which consultation can take place not just with Ministries but with the Member concerned, so as to avoid such an error in the future?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly. I am sure that the Clerks at the Table will consult with the hon. Member any time he likes to approach them. I understood that the Table, in this instance, wrote to the hon. Member. I am sorry that the matter was not hammered out before so as to avoid having to trouble the House with it.

BRITISH ARMY

Rhine Army Exercises (Casualties)

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about the casualties in recent training exercises in B.A.O.R.
During the period from 1st August to 15th October, 1960, six soldiers lost their lives as a result of the training being carried out in B.A.O.R. Four of these deaths were due to traffic accidents, one to a vehicle fire, and the other to asphyxiation from fire-extinguisher fumes.
To be effective, Army training must be as realistic and comprehensive as possible. Naturally, there is no question of trying to achieve this end regardless of the danger to individuals. But the fact is that the whole of Rhine Army, plus certain units from this country, were engaged in intensive field training and exercises under active service conditions over this period of ten weeks. In such circumstances there must always be the danger of accidents, some of which may prove fatal.
Every case of accidental death outside the United Kingdom is the subject of a board of inquiry and the proceedings are sent to the War Office. Where there is any lesson to be drawn from the findings of the board, it is of course applied for the future; and where the proceedings reveal circumstances which call for disciplinary action, this is taken.
In view of the public concern about these accidents, I give the House the undertaking that I will myself look at the proceedings of each of the boards of inquiry.
I should be misleading the House if I said anything which could be interpreted as meaning that in training on this scale all danger of fatal accidents can be removed. It cannot. There will always be the possibility of human error and mechanical failure. These are the chief causes of fatal accidents.
Apart from the unfortunate deaths to which I have referred, during the whole of this ten-week period of mass manoeuvres there were only four cases of serious injury. These were all the result of traffic accidents. I am glad to


say that two of the soldiers involved have already been discharged from hospital.
I think that the House would wish me to repeat the expression of sympathy which I have already made public with the relatives of those who have been killed.

Mr. Strachey: The information that the Secretary of State has given us modifies, to some extent, the impression which the public received of this lamentable incident. The right hon. Gentleman now tells us that there were only six deaths—not nine, as reported—and four injured, as against a report of 125 injured.
In view of this, will the right hon. Gentleman look very carefully into the statement of the spokesman for B.A.O.R., who is reported as saying, on 14th October, "Nine deaths were not considered to be excessive"? We now see that that statement was not only callous—I can use no other word—but also misinformed. Further, the spokesman completely failed to contradict the very widely spread statement that 125 men had been injured. In justice to itself, the Army's public relations need rather better handling than that.
Secondly, while I agree, of course, that manoeuvres must be realistic, were not these really rather too realistic? After all, the revised figure of fatal casualties is only two short of the total casualties incurred in the taking of Port Said in an opposed air drop and an opposed landing? We should like some explanation of this sudden rise in figures as otherwise we would think that the Secretary of State was being rather callous.

Mr. Profumo: I think that every hon. Member has considerable experience of the Press and will appreciate that when someone is asked, on the spur of the moment, to make a statement on a very controversial issue it is not always possible to make a statement which afterwards, on the facts of the case then known, can be taken out of its context. Perhaps I may say that when the Army spokesman made his statement about the numbers we did not know what the facts truly were. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why make it, then?"] It is only since then that it has been possible to ascertain that of the nine deaths about which the

Army spokesman talked, three, whilst occurring within the period during which the exercise was being carried out, had absolutely nothing to do with the exercise itself, but were caused by traffic accidents outside the sphere of the exercise altogether.
Secondly, the figure of 125 represented casualties in the military sense; that is to say, that of about 50,000 troops engaged in the exercise during the period of ten weeks that number were sent to hospital, but some had colds, and others had chipped fingers; the number included all the things that in the normal way one would not call casualties. It is for that reason that those figures were given.
To put it into perspective, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman saw the action I took after this, when I issued a statement on behalf of the Army Council saying that the death of any soldier greatly disturbed me and my colleagues. I can only say that I have taken the earliest possible opportunity to put this matter in its proper perspective, and I hope that the House will accept that.

Mr. Shinwell: The Secretary of State mentioned 50,000 troops as being engaged in these manœuvres. Is it not true that the number was in excess of that figure? How does the number of casualties—accidents and fatalities—compare with what has happened in previous manœuvres? Is not one of the troubles that these exercises had a higher mobility than before; that previous manœuvres have been a bit sluggish and that present ones are being speeded up excessively? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that aspect of the matter?

Mr. Profumo: I think that as we use more modern equipment the term "speeded up" is correct. The exercises become more modern and complicated. This year the training exercise went on for longer, and the number of troops involved was greater than for several years. The figure of 50,000 that I quoted is approximate. It is difficult to tell accurately, because some of the troops took part on several occasions. In addition to the British Army of the Rhine there were, as has been said, other units sent from this country to take part in the exercises.
While I do not at all seek to minimise what happened, I do say, to put it into perspective, that if, during the same period of August to October, one takes the number of people in civilian life killed on the roads, one finds that the figure is 789 compared with a figure of four.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) indicated to me that he desired to raise some matter.

Mr. Frank Bowles: This morning, Mr. Speaker, you kindly gave me an interview, and I intimated to you then that I wanted to raise a matter of Privilege. Perhaps I might start by referring to Chapter VIII of Erskine May, under the heading
Attempts By Improper Means to Influence Members in Their Parliamentary Conduct.
On 2nd May, 1695, this House passed the following Resolution:
That the offer of money, or other advantage, to any member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever, depending or to be transacted in Parliament is a high crime and misdemeanour and tends to be subversion of the English constitution.
That is the extreme case.
The next heading is:
Acts Tending Indirectly To Obstruct Members In the Discharge of Their Duty.
It is stated:
Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt to influence a Member in the discharge of his duties, but having a tendency to impair his independence in the future performance of his duty, will also be treated as a breach of privilege.
The newspaper to which I refer is Reynolds News of last Sunday, and I take the first opportunity to bring to your notice, Sir, and that of the House, an article headed:
Beware the PR men as they invade the shrinking world of hard news!
The article is by Ivan Yates and, if I may, I will read those extracts relevant to the point I now want to raise.
Hon. Members will have heard of Messrs. Coleman, Prentis and Varley, who have an associate firm called "Voice and Vision". The first extract reads:
Then CPV took on another client—Sir Roy Welensky, Prime Minister of the Central African Federation. CPV's associate Voice

and Vision, public relations consultants, shouldered the task of putting Sir Roy in a favourable light.
The author then goes on to deal with other matters with which I do not think I need trouble the House, and continues:
Soon after V and V took on Welensky's account, they offered free trips to M.P.s of all parties to see for themselves the wonders of partnership in the Federation. Three Tories and three Labour M.P.s—
I do not know who they are—
were given their tickets. After their tour the Federal Government threw a party for them and held a Press conference. They warmly backed the Federation and deplored any talk of secession.
I think, Sir, that you will remember my second quotation from Erskine May:
Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt to influence a Member in the discharge of his duties, but having a tendency to impair his independence in the future performance of his duty, will also be treated as a breach of privilege.
I suspect that this is as gross and grave a breach of Privilege as I can imagine, and what has been written has already been read by more than 1 million people. The article is either untrue and, therefore, a gross reflection on the Members concerned—and probably on this House, also—or it is true, in which case a firm of business consultants has tried, and possibly succeeded, to influence Members of Parliament over a very serious matter which is soon to be debated and decided by this House. In other words, the allegation is that those concerned were entertained out of moneys supplied by some business consultants.
The author of the article concluded by asking for an inquiry. I can think of no better inquiry than one by this House on a report back from the Committee of Privileges. I therefore ask you, Sir, to say that there is a prima facie case here.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member be good enough, when handing in the newspaper, to mark the two passages to which he drew attention?

Copy of newspaper delivered in.

Mr. Speaker: Under the present dispensation I am allowed 24 hours to think about this. I will take them, and rule tomorrow.

Later—

Mr. R. T. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to


raise a matter connected with the point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). I do not know whether you have seen my Question No. 42 on the Order Paper, which deals with the same problem—
To ask the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to control expenditure in this country by foreign or Commonwealth Governments for purposes of political propaganda either directly or through advertising agents employed for this purpose.
You may remember some time ago talks about the Daily Herald and Russian gold, some forty years ago. Any attempts, whether it be by Ghana or by Southern Rhodesia, or by any foreign Government, to interfere with British politics by conducting propaganda have always been looked upon with great suspicion. I am not at all clear whether it is a matter on which the Government should defend the country or on which you, Mr. Speaker, should defend the House. I felt I should draw to your attention that this matter was raised in the other form as well.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the hon. and learned Member is doing. If he is asking me to rule on some other point of Privilege, and will say what it it is, I will do my best to rule upon it, but a reference to an unreached Question does not seem to assist me.

STANDING ORDER NO, 12 (NOTICES OF MOTIONS)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order and ask your guidance? During the Recess I attempted to give notice of Motion to enable me, under Standing Order No. 12, usually known as the Ten Minutes Rule, to move a Motion for leave to introduce a Bill. It would not be right for me to explain the details of the Bill, but my complaint is that the notice of Motion does not appear on the Order Paper.
The Bill was one to amend the Rent Act. I took the precaution of sending copies to every hon. Member of the House; the Bill is supported by a very large number of Members on this side of the House, and I have had communications expressing considerable sympathy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to hear the hon. Member on his point of order but not too much about the virtues of the Bill.

Mr. Fletcher: The point of order is this, Mr. Speaker. Under Standing Order No. 12 it is now provided, by a proviso to the Standing Order, which was introduced for the first time in February of this year, that seven days' notice of any such Motion should be given. I gave more than seven days' notice. I gave notice to you, Sir, and to the Clerk of the House about four weeks ago. I understand that the only reason why my notice of Motion enabling me to move this Motion does not appear on the Order Paper is to be found in a reference in Erskine May.
Erskine May does not, as one would have thought, make it necessary that this notice of Motion should be given while the House is sitting. Pages 375 and 376 of Erskine May deal with the manner in which notices of Motion can be given. Erskine May says that a notice of Motion can be given orally. It says that in recent years it has been customary to give notice of Motion in writing and
to deliver its terms in writing at any time during the sitting of the House to the clerks at the table who see that it is duly printed.
There is nothing in that passage in Erskine May which says that a Member may not, during a Recess, give notice of Motion to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule.
At best, the passage in Erskine May is ambiguous. But even if it were not ambiguous, the position has been greatly changed by the addition of this proviso to Standing Order No. 12. I think that this proviso which was added to the Standing Order in February of this year, enables a Motion of intention to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule to be given at any time.
It does not seem to me that when the House added the proviso the House could have intended to exclude the rights of hon. Members to give seven days' notice during a Recess, particularly during a long adjournment such as we have just experienced. If that were to be the case, it would remove from hon. Members their right of proposing legislation on matters which arise during an adjournment, such as


this matter which, as Questions have shown today, is of considerable importance to a large number of tenants, not only in London but throughout the country.
Therefore, Sir, I would ask you to rule, in the new circumstances that have arisen by reason of the proviso to Standing Order No. 12, that Members wishing to give notice can do so both during an adjournment and while the House is sitting.

Mr. Speaker: Thanks to the courtesy of the hon. Member, I have had a chance to consider this matter. It is a longstanding rule of this House that notices of Motion must be given and can only be given when the House is sitting. I could not change that without some direction or authority from the House. I could not do it on my own.
As regards the proviso added to Standing Order No. 12, I do not find it possible to take the view that there is anything in the terms of that proviso which, even by implication, suggests that the rule has by authority of the House been altered. That is the only Ruling that I can make on the point which the hon. Gentleman has so courteously submitted to me. Of course, if the House likes to change its rule, that is a different matter.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could tell us what is the basis for what you call the long-standing rule that notice cannot be given during a Recess. I ask the question because the passage in Erskine May quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) simply says that it has been customary recently for notice to be given during a sitting day. Surely the implication is that it would, at any rate, be possible to give notice during a Recess. Can my hon. Friend's rights be abridged

merely by something that has grown up as a custom in comparatively recent years?

Mr. Speaker: With respect, it is not comparatively recent. The point is that notice was given orally, and it is difficult to give oral notice to this House when it is not sitting. That is the basis of the rule that has grown up and that is why the rule exists. I may be wrong, but it is subject to research. Anyhow, I am satisfied that the rule exists and that it is sufficiently established to make it improper for me to try to alter it without the order of the House.

Mr. Robert Mellish: Further to that point of order. Do we understand that in accordance with that Ruling, Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) can now give notice of his Bill, that it would be in order for him now to give notice orally of his intention, and that tomorrow it would have its First Reading? Then, perhaps, if we could get this Motion on the Order Paper relating to Thursday's business altered, we might be able to get the Second Reading of my hon. Friend's Bill on Thursday.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, this is a little confused. By Standing Order No. 12 one is requested to give seven days' notice. I only know from the newspapers what is likely to happen on Thursday, but it is difficult to understand how the hon. Member can give seven days' notice under Standing Order No. 12 of intention to bring in a Bill on Thursday. As for giving notice of introducing a Bill, that is quite a different matter, but it does not secure quite the same kind of priority, so it does not have the same advantage.

Mr. Fletcher: May I now orally give notice, Sir, of my intention to present the Bill tomorrow under Standing Order No. 35?

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do meet on Thursday at Eleven o'clock and that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Robert Mellish: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that this is a debatable Motion. May I refer to the point that I made a little earlier? I feel that perhaps I did not make myself very clear, and I should now like to do so.
As I understand, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has now given notice orally of his intention under the Ten Minutes Rule—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—under Standing Order No. 35 to introduce a Bill concerning the amendment of the Rent Act. As I understand, tomorrow the procedure will be that the Bill will be given a formal First Reading, and then notification will be given that the next occasion on which it will be debated will be "tomorrow", which, in Parliamentary terms, never comes.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the House to consider whether, if some of us have a matter of some urgency concerning proposed legislation before the Session ends, we ought to allow Thursday's sitting to end at 12 o'clock. I think that I carry everybody with me, including Conservative Members, and particularly London Members, in saying that there is a great deal of hardship throughout London concerning rents, and that this is a matter which we ought to be allowed to debate—

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order. Is this not a speech?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) is not on a point of order; he is making a speech.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I therefore rise on a point of order. Is it correct to say that the Motion before the House, which the hon. Member is debating, really does terminate the proceedings of this Session at 12 o'clock on Thursday? Does not the Motion only say that the House shall sit at 11 o'clock and that no Questions be taken after 12 o'clock, and, therefore,

anything which happens after that, strictly speaking, has nothing to do with the Motion before the House?

Mr. Speaker: That sounds a rather attractive proposition, but I think that I had better hear what the hon. Member for Bermondsey has to say about it.

Mr. Mellish: The point I am trying to make—and I should have thought that if it was clearly stated the hon. Member would have understood it—is that, if this Motion goes through, we understand that Thursday's business will terminate at 12 o'clock. [Hon. Members: "No."] If that is not so, then there is no determination of what we are to be debating on Thursday, and if that is so, I am willing to agree that for Thursday's debate we can stage a debate on rents, including perhaps the Rent Bill, and that would be in order. In fact, there is a grave likelihood of the House rising at 12 o'clock on Thursday, and this I do not want to happen.

Mr. Speaker: The difficulty is that the Motion does not say that, and it does not deal with the problem which the hon. Gentleman is talking about. This has reached the stage when I shall have to ask him to relate his observations to the Motion which he is discussing.

Mr. Mellish: With great respect, I am asking for your help. We on this side of the House are in a minority, though I appreciate that it is your desire and intention to help us, Mr. Speaker. As I read the Motion, it says that no Questions will be taken after 12 o'clock, and, in fact, the custom has been that after Question Time the House rises or the Session ends. What I am asking is, in view of the fact that there is so much other business to consider, whether it would be in order on Thursday to have a debate on one of those matters which many of my hon. Friends and I think are important and which are worrying the rest of the country, and to give notice that we intend to raise the whole question of rents in London?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not denying the hon. Member as much help as I can properly give him, but I cannot help him beyond the rules of order. The difficulty is that the Motion to which he is speaking, and the only one to which


he can speak, does not govern what happens after Questions, which makes it rather difficult for. me to help him.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: May I, with great respect, ask if we are to have an explanation of the meaning of this Motion from the Government? If this Motion were to provide for meeting at the normal hour, 2.30 p.m., alter Questions there would be time for debating any other business, including the Rent Bill, which so many hon. Members are anxious to discuss, and which is a matter of urgent and grave concern to many tenants not only in London and Greater London, but throughout the provinces.
I submit that until we can get some indication of the Government's intentions, and we have a reason for the glib and deliberate refusal of the Minister for Housing and Local Government this afternoon to do anything about it—which I am sure has fallen with astonishment on everybody who heard it, and which will be read with widespread alarm in the country—it would surely be wrong to pass this Motion without knowing more about the Government's intentions. As I understand it, the only way that we can remedy that is by opposing this Motion.
You, Mr. Speaker, have intimated, and I have heard it rumoured, that on Thursday, after Questions, there may be a Royal Proclamation for the Prorogation of Parliament. Neither you nor I have any official knowledge about that. One reads various things in the newspapers, but the Proclamation proroguing Parliament is a matter for the Royal Prerogative, and I understand that the Royal Prerogative is a matter which we do not normally discuss.
Opinions may change. There may be an intention to prorogue, but that intention may be changed, and for all any of us officially know, something may happen which induces a change of plan on the part of those advising the Crown in regard to the Proclamation on Thursday, so that there may be no Prorogation. It may be perfectly proper that there should be no Proclamation and no Prorogation. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends would wish to argue that Parliament should not be prorogued until we have had an opportunity of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must state clearly now that if I continue to be too indulgent to the hon. Gentleman, I shall be obliged to be too indulgent to somebody else. What this Motion does is expressed on the Order Paper. It has nothing whatever to do with Prorogation or anything happening after 12 o'clock on Thursday, except that there shall be no Questions after 12 o'clock. My duty requires me to confine the debate to that topic.

Mr. Mellish: Would I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in moving a manuscript Amendment to the Motion to delete the words "Eleven o'clock" and insert "Ten o'clock"? Would you accept that as an Amendment, so that we could then discuss it? That would give us one hour of which we could be certain so that we could discuss any other matters, apart from Questions on Thursday.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot do that, anyhow, because he has spoken to it once on this problem. I would not feel much disposed to do that, because it will not improve the scope of the Motion for the purpose of his argument anyway.

Mr. Austen Albu: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is meant by no Questions being taken after 12 o'clock? As I understand, if there are no questions before the House there can be no debate. Does that mean Questions to Ministers or Questions in the Parliamentary sense of something before the House? If it means the latter, then, of course, the Motion will debar us from any further discussion of any matter, because there will be no Question before the House, and if we pass this Motion we shall be debarred from further debate.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Until someone corrects me, I shall proceed on it as meaning Questions to Ministers and go accordingly.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: The House is in this difficulty. The Prime Minister and the Government are asking the House to accept this Motion, but we do not know what it means. As the discussion which has taken place so far has clearly indicated, some hon. Members do not know what this Motion means. I do not know what it means,


and I am not prepared to accept it until I have heard from the Government Front Bench what it is that we are being asked to do.
On the face of it, it means that we do not know what is to happen after 12 o'clock on Thursday. It is of material concern to us that we should know what is to happen after 12 o'clock, because we do not know what Questions this Motion refers to—whether it is Questions to Ministers or a Question before the House. I think that the Leader of the House ought to show some respect for hon. Members by providing us with an explanation of the Government's intentions. Until that explanation is forthcoming, I propose to record my opposition to this Motion, if necessary by calling for a Division.

4.9 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): It might be convenient if I respond with courtesy to the request of the hon. Member who was so clearly muddled. I thought that he was in his place on 27th July of this year, when I clearly indicated what the procedure would be. Referring to Thursday, 27th October, I said:
It is proposed to meet at 11 a.m. and Questions will be taken until 12 noon. It is expected that Prorogation will take place after Questions and that the new Session will be opened on Tuesday. 1st November."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1960; Vol. 627, c. 1862.]
The House, therefore, had full advance notice of the Motion on the Order Paper.
The second question which arises is: what does it mean? It means that no Questions will be taken after 12 noon, and that, as you indicated in your Ruling on the matter, Mr. Speaker, and as I confirm, means that no Questions in the sense of Questions to Ministers will be asked after 12 o'clock. That is what it means.
Now, after notice given and running during all the length of the summer, and after my explanation of what it means, the third question to ask is whether there is anything sinister or original in this Motion. I have ascertained that the Motion conforms with the usual procedure on such occasions absolutely and accurately. It allows for Oral Questions, and it satisfies the Committee's request, which we had before

we left, for Oral Questions to be taken on that day. There is, therefore, nothing sinister or unusual in this prior to a Prorogation.
The Queen will be opening the new Session of Parliament on 1st November. There will be ample opportunity then, during a long period ahead, for us to ventilate all matters which interest hon. Members. I think that it would be a pity if we departed from the normal procedure of the House by not passing a Motion of this type, which deals with the Prorogation in the normal way. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept the Motion as it is stated.

Mr. William Ross: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what would happen if the House refused his Motion?

Mr. Butler: The arrangements for Prorogation being made, presumably, we shall be summoned to another place. While I am, I hope, a loyal Member of the Commons and always ready to assert our independence, I certainly should not assert my independence so far as not to go to another place on that occasion to listen to the proclamation of Prorogation.
If the hon. Member does not feel in that mood, I cannot influence him, because I do not wish to deprive him or any hon. Member of his sense of independence. But this is the normal practice and, out of courtesy towards the procedure of the House and the system of proclamation and Prorogation, I think, frankly, that it would be a pity if the House were to pursue the matter further.

Mr. Frank Bowles: Does the Leader of the House remember that, at an earlier part of the Session, something rather important was going on when Black Rod knocked at the door? The House was very angry that Black Rod should interfere with the business of the House. This may be a matter of calling for the Prorogation of this Session, but does the right hon. Gentleman remember that occasion?

Mr. Butler: Yes, I remember that. It caused me some annoyance as well. I made a mental note that, so far as one can control the mysteries of Black Rod, one should endeavour to do so. But this occasion is somewhat different. That was an occasion of rather awkward timing


which did not happen to suit the Commons House and which I think was a great pity. I hope that it will not happen again.
On this occasion, we have given due notice that Prorogation is to take place, and I think that it raises an entirely different question in relation to the intervention of Black Rod and his presence here.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: What the right hon. Gentleman has said about the episode involving Black Rod on an earlier occasion this Session is very interesting. It shows that those of my hon. Friends who then protested against the entry of Black Rod secured a notable success. They have drawn to his attention that it is not desirable that Black Rod should enter at times which do not suit the business of this House. But that, although important, of course, is not the immediate issue we are discussing.
On the immediate question of the Motion, it seems to me that the Home Secretary's speech has made it a good deal easier for us to see what exactly is in issue here. The right hon. Gentleman managed to get into his speech the very point which some of us were having difficulty in getting in under the rules of order. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, we have found difficulty in referring to the fact that Prorogation is expected to take place after Questions on Thursday. The Home Secretary made no bones about it. He rested his argument on the fact that that was what was expected in July and is, apparently, still expected.
I submit, therefore, that we are in order in discussing the Motion on the clear assumption that it means more than appears. It means that we meet at 11 o'clock and have Questions until 12, but, more than that, it means that we do not have any other business that day. It is for that reason that a good many of my hon. Friends object to the Motion as it at present stands. Repeatedly at Question Time today there was raised the matter of rents, which affects the Metropolis in particular and affects other parts of the country, too. We had from the Minister of Housing and Local Government that stony indifference which marks his approach to the whole problem. It is not to be expected that London Members will be prepared to see this Session

end without a further attempt to deal with the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has provided us in his proposed Bill with the instrument whereby that may be done. I hope that on Thursday it can either be made procedurally possible for the House to proceed with one of the stages of my hon. Friend's proposed Bill or, if that is impossible, that we shall find some other means of dealing with this extremely serious housing problem. That is what Thursday ought to be for.
We have in this House a good deal of old tradition and pageantry—the formal opening of the Session, the formalities of Prorogation, and so forth. With the aid of television, we are making these things known not only to our own people but to people all over the world. It is very important that we should not spread the impression that this House is mainly a place of pageantry. Pageantry has its place, but we ought to make clear to the world that this is a place of work as well. I should like to see Thursday devoted not only to the necessary pageantry of Prorogation but to the discussion of these urgent human problems.
It should not be beyond the wit of the Leader of the House to devise some means whereby that can be done. Otherwise, he may find that his proposed programme for Thursday is not altogether well received by hon. Members. He mentioned, when speaking of the earlier incident concerning Black Rod, that it caused him some annoyance. I ask him to remember that anyone acquainted with the history of the House knows that this House of Commons does not best maintain its dignity by always being conforming and polite. Some of its great historic moments have been rather violent and rumbustious upsets in the normal procedures of the House.
The right of the House of Commons at least to express a dislike of being prorogued when there is important business to be done in a Session was asserted as far back as the reign of King Charles II. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that, even earlier, one of your predecessors was forcibly held in the Chair in order to assert the right of the House to continue to legislate whether the Crown wished it to do so or not. If, therefore, some of my hon. Friends find that the


proposed formal programme for Thursday is, in their judgment, not entirely adequate to the needs of the situation, the Leader of the House will have no occasion to say that he has not been given notice of that.
I plead not only for my hon. Friends. There are some hon. Members opposite—I see one of them in his place—who have from time to time protested an interest in the matter of London rents. Their assistance to us in Questions to the Minister of Housing this afternoon was not very notable, but, if we can have an opportunity to raise the matter on Thursday, they may be able to show how greatly interested they are. I raise this, therefore, as a matter which concerns all sections of the House.
I ask the Leader of the House to say, before he asks us to pass the Motion, that he will reconsider the programme for Thursday and that, if humanly possible, an opportunity will be given to the House to proceed with one of the stages of the Bill proposed to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: At the invitation of the House, I intervene again. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has put the proposition that there should be an occasion for reviewing or discussing some stage of the Bill which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) wishes to bring forward. I must remind the House, as I did not do during the interchanges with Mr. Speaker on the points of order, that the House itself came to a decision following upon the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, which, in paragraph 19, reported in this sense:
… we think that Members ought to be given a longer period in which to inform themselves on the situation which it is proposed to remedy by legislative action".
In view of that part of the Report of the Select Committee, which was passed by 18 votes to 3, on 8th February this year we passed an alteration to Standing Order No. 12, the proviso to which the hon. Member for Islington, East referred to, which gave proper sanction to that finding of the Select Committee.
The only remaining issue is that raised by the hon. Member in his points of

order, namely, whether notice during the Recess should count. Mr. Speaker has ruled that, in fact, notice must be given while the House is sitting. The House, as late as 8th February this year, bound itself to a new procedure which, in my view at.any rate, makes it virtually impossible for the hon. Member's Bill to be discussed. That is as a result of a largely majority view of our own Select Committee on Procedure. It is therefore, in my view, impossible to consider the hon. Member's Bill in the form suggested.
I do not see how we can go back on a decision taken by ourselves on 8th February, a decision taken without any opposition. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends felt so strongly about this, why they did not make an objection when we passed this Standing Order on 8th February, I do not understand. It has now been passed, and I think that it is in the spirit both of Erskine May and of the practice of this House. That is the particular proposition about the Bill which corresponds with and enlarges upon the Rulings already given on that subject from the Chair. I think that we are all in agreement that that is our procedure, and that is the order of affairs.
On the general proposition, I do not think it is unreasonable that the Government should adhere to the terms of the Motion. It corresponds exactly to precedent. There is nothing unusual in Prorogation taking place in exactly this way. I have looked up the precedents and it follows previous practice. It is the Government's intention, having given notice as early as the end of July, that this procedure should stand.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: The Leader of the House will recall that before the decision that we should come back on 25th October was taken the Opposition made representations in favour of this on the ground that it was not possible to foresee exactly what would happen during the Recess and that we might need to ask questions and to raise matters in the House of an urgent character before the Queen's Speech and the debate upon the Address. My hon. Friends have made it perfectly plain what concerns them in particular, namely, the problems and difficulties associated with the enforcement of the Rent Act in London. This applies to


other parts of the country as well, but it has been raised this afternoon in particular by London Members.
The Leader of the House has been pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), in particular, to see if he cannot find some way by which the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) can be discussed. The right hon. Gentleman has rested his opposition to that on the change in the Standing Orders pursuant to and following the recommendations of the Select Committee. I will not pursue that particular point because I think that my hon. Friends, although they strongly support the Bill of my hon. Friend, probably would be satisfied if we could have a debate on the situation, whether it takes place upon the Bill of my hon. Friend or not.
The right hon. Gentleman said in his earlier remarks that he was very much concerned when, on an earlier occasion, the entry of Black Rod, or the attempted entry of Black Rod, was greeted with considerable resentment and hostility by hon. Members. I am sure that he would not wish the same thing to occur again. He said that he was not exactly certain when Prorogation would occur. There was a certain mystery about the whole proceedings. However, I think that we have complete faith in him in his capacity as Leader of the House to see that Prorogation takes place at a different time if that is the wish of the House.
I should like to put this suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. Why must we limit our sitting to this single hour on Thursday? Why should not there be a rather longer sitting, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) suggested, either that we should meet earlier or that Prorogation should take place rather later? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this point and to see if he can arrange a later time for Prorogation so that in the interval between the end of Questions and Prorogation a debate on the rent situation can take place.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Richard Marsh: The implication in the Motion of the Leader of the House appears to be quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman has to stick to his programme because notice of this was given to the House before it rose.

But the only reason why the House agreed to rise and accepted the suggestions which he put forward was upon a clear understanding from the Government benches that if anything of urgency happened in the meantime they would have no hesitation in giving hon. Members on both sides the opportunity to make points in relation to that situation.
Since then there has been a complete change in the situation in London, Middlesex and other parts of the country which has created considerable hardship for hundreds of thousands of people. It is well known on both sides of the House that Members on this side have very specific propositions which they wish to put to hon. Members opposite. It was also said by the Minister that he would be prepared to hear suggestions and to examine the evidence. There is considerable evidence of considerable hardship which exists as a result of the Rent Act. If the only reason why we cannot change this situation is that the programme was laid down before the House rose, it is clearly now a matter of sufficient urgency to be reasonable to ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the position. Surely the House is not run for the benefit of particular arrangements. I should have thought that it was run primarily for the benefit of Her Majesty's subjects and to consider things affecting their welfare which arise from time to time.
You, Sir, said that my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) could not move a manuscript Amendment to change the time from 11 o'clock to 10 o'clock, which would enable us to have some discussion on a matter of urgency without impinging upon the Prorogation, because he had already spoken upon the issue. Would you, Sir, be prepared to accept a manuscript Amendment from someone who has not spoken on the issue asking that the time be changed from 11 o'clock to 10 o'clock so that some time at least can be given to a discussion of this very serious subject which not only affects the people concerned but also raises very real implications concerning the ability of the Government to be able to deal with this situation? May I ask you, Sir, whether you would be prepared to accept a manuscript Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: No; I do not think it right to do that. I think that the debate


has run quite wide enough to make the point plain to Her Majesty's Government and to everybody else.

4.29 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: Before the Leader of the House answers the request made by the Opposition, may I make my position perfectly plain? If there is any spare time going, I want to discuss the position of those living on small fixed incomes. I do not know what my right hon. Friend will say, but I hope that before he says, in his usual polite tones, that he will consider what has been said by various right hon. and hon. Members opposite he will remember that I live in a different part of the country from London and that if there is any spare time going I should like to take advantage of it. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will consider my request, because I should like a very wide debate on the position of those living on small fixed incomes.
I should like to suggest to my right hon. Friend that it would be as well if we adhered to what has been the practice for very many years. I am horrified to hear all these criticisms of Black Rod. I am delighted when he comes into the House. I feel a sense of security that their Lordships' House and this honourable Chamber should get together. I do not think it is very fitting that we should discuss an incident which happened as a result of bad timing. If we are to do anything on Thursday, I hope that someone from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Department will be on the Front Bench to deal with the points that I should like to raise.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I do not know who has threatened to attack the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), but I am certain that she is capable of looking after herself without the assistance of Black Rod. However, I am glad that she feels a sense of security when he is about.
I hope that the hon. Lady will support us in this matter. Many of the people who are most affected and who can be helped only by the legislation which is proposed by my hon. Friend

the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) are people on small fixed incomes. Therefore, I am certain that the hon. Lady could make many of the points which she wishes to make in the debate which we are trying to arrange.
The Leader of the House said that we should display courtesy towards the customs of the House. I agree with that, and so do the vast majority of my hon. Friends, but I also think that we have to have a certain amount of courtesy and common compassion towards people in danger of being rendered homeless. I believe that while we can observe due courtesy to the House we can at the same time find a few hours between now and Prorogation on Thursday to make sure that the Bill put forward by my hon. Friend goes through at least another of its stages. It is necessary to have legislation to help these people. It is the only way in which they can possibly be helped.
Unless we are able to proceed some way before we rise, it will not be possible for a Private Member to bring in a Bill for at least another month. We have had no suggestion at all that the Government would bring forward such a Bill, and yet the Government are the only people who are in a position to bring in a Bill during November because of the Standing Order which prevents Private Members from introducing legislation until after the procedure of the Ballot. It is absolutely essential that we should go some stage further with the Bill this Session and in due course carry the Bill over to the next Session and continue with the work then.
I hope that the Leader of the House will look again at the Motion. Subject to anything that you may say, Mr. Speaker, I should not think it was absolutely necessary to pass the Motion today. Cannot the Leader of the House withdraw the Motion today to give him time to look further into the matter, reconsider it and perhaps put a slightly different Motion on the Order Paper for tomorrow? I should have thought that that would have been in time for dealing with the time of starting and finishing business on Thursday.
We have put several points to the Leader of the House. Today, Mr. Speaker, you have taken advantage of the fact


that you have a period of 24 hours in which to consider a point of order put to you, and you are to report back to the House upon that point of order tomorrow. I am convinced that the House would be prepared to give the Leader of the House exactly the same facilities so that he could think about the matter for a short while and bring forward another Motion tomorrow. I am certain that if he takes advantage of a few hours in order to look at the matter, he will find a way of allowing my hon. Friend to bring forward his Bill for Second Reading on Thursday.
I notice the Leader of the House shaking his head. He has informed us that it was only in February of this year that the House decided that in order to give hon. Members time for mature and proper consideration we should have seven days' notice for Ten Minute Bills. That is perfectly correct. Were we in normal circumstances whereby the House had been in session during the past few weeks, I do not think any of my hon. Friends would have tried to raise the point in the way we are being forced to raise it now.
However, I ask the Leader of the House to reflect on the fact that my hon. Friend, at some expense and considerable trouble to himself, made sure almost four weeks ago that every hon. Member had a copy of his Bill. Thus, every hon. Member has had about four weeks in which to give due consideration to his proposals. That, of course, is not in accordance with the Standing Orders, but I should have thought that the spirit of the Standing Orders had been fully and amply complied with. I am certain that every hon. Member is fully aware of what my hon. Friend proposes and has had plenty of time to consider the matter, and that my hon. Friend's actions have been in compliance with the spirit of the Standing Orders. I cannot understand why the Leader of the House is keeping to the Report of the Select Committee—

Mr. Mellish: It might help my hon. Friend to develop his argument if he knows that only one Conservative hon. Member has replied saying that he has a copy of the Bill and offering support.

Mr. Reynolds: That does not surprise me. Only on 27th July, the day when

the Business for this week was announced, we were told by the Minister of Housing and Local Government that there was no problem in this matter. Therefore, we did not know at that time that it would be necessary to deal with this matter today. On the same day as the Leader of the House told us that we should meet on Thursday at 11 o'clock and have Prorogation in the afternoon, the Minister of Housing and Local Government told the House, at about 6 o'clock in the morning, that there was no problem at all so far as rents were concerned, and that there were just one or two odd swindlers with whom he wished to deal. Yet less than a month later hon. Members were bringing forward all sorts of cases and the Minister changed his mind and sent out a circular ordering panic action on the part of local authorities.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We really cannot discuss this difficult problem of rents on this Motion. I trust that the hon. Member will bear that in mind.

Mr. Reynolds: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, if I was going outside the Motion.
I think it is possible for the Government to show willingness and take the Motion back today and have a few hours of mature consideration of the problem, and I am certain that it is not beyond the wit and brains of the Leader of the House to find a Motion to put on the Order Paper tomorrow which will meet the requests from this side of the House and enable us to get a move on with some legislation which will rid many thousands of families in the London area of the terrible anxieties from which they are suffering at the present time.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I support the suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) has just made, that in view of the discussion which has been proceeding for some little time now the Leader of the House should take the Motion back and reconsider it.
Like the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), I am not a London Member, and, like her—I hope I am interpreting her speech correctly—I believe that the more subjects there are which will not brook


delay the more necessary it is to take such time as we have remaining to us in this Session to look at them. There is really no reason why the whole of Thursday afternoon and evening should be wasted merely because we have dealt with Prorogation in this way in the past.
I cannot agree with the hon. Lady about Black Rod. The only sense of security I get in connection with that gentleman is when we shut the door very firmly in his face and refuse admittance to him so that we can get on with our business. I get a very real sense of insecurity when I see the doors opened to him and everybody trooping into another place, because I do not know what in the world they are going to bring back.
As I understood his speech, the difficulty of the Leader of the House was that somehow or other it would be too hasty and that hon. Members would not have the opportunity of close consideration which we agreed when we altered the Standing Orders that they ought to have before they consider a Measure of this kind. But it seemed to me, with great respect, that that was really standing the argument on its head. If my hon. Friend gets the opportunity, say on Thursday, of proceeding with the next stage of his Bill, that would be the Second Reading. Let us suppose that in an excess of sanity on both sides of the House his Motion for Second Reading were to be accepted. It could go no further. That would be the last day of the Session. The Bill would have to be introduced again later on.

Mr. Reynolds: While it would be unusual, I do not think it would be impossible, if the House really desired it, to have a carry-over or suspension Motion to enable the Bill to continue.

Mr. Silverman: I dare say. I am not quite sure whether that is the position or not. At one time it certainly was not possible. Whether it is possible now or not I do not know, but that is not really material to my argument. What would normally take place were the Bill to be moved again in the next Session or carried over would be that there would, in any case, be an interval for reflection which the Leader of the House postulated is necessary and the absence of Which he thought was fatal to dealing

with the Bill on Thursday. The absence of it is not fatal at all because the debate would provide hon. Members with the information that they require and then there would be a pause for reflection and the Government would consider the matter again.
I listened to the Minister of Housing this afternoon. I would not myself withhold from him the tribute of sincerity and good will if he says he is really very anxious about this matter, but I am bound to say that his answers to Questions revealed a most astonishing ignorance about What the state of affairs not only in London is in this matter—a really astonishing ignorance in a Minister. He would not appoint that committee of inquiry, because he did not want to know, and the reason he did not want to know was that he had taken up his dogmatic, doctrinal attitude about rent control and was really disturbed because he might be faced with sufficient information to undermine it and to force him to put right the mistake he committed several years ago now.
In the debate we want he would get a lot of information which he could not resist, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to take this stand, not to be so rigid in this formal interpretation of the Motion as to prevent the House from having this opportunity. I ask him to think about the matter again and to take the Motion back to see if we cannot have Thursday afternoon so that my hon. Friend can move to bring in his Bill.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I can understand that the right hon. Gentleman may not want to take this Motion back because we might be in difficulties without having this question before us, but there seems to me to be one very simple solution which would really be in accord with his duties as Leader of the House both to sense the feeling of the House and also to preserve its rights and its dignity. The real question is to get a debate some time on Thursday. It is really all that is needed. The Motion merely says that we shall have Questions till 12 o'clock. It does not say in form what should happen thereafter. Clearly, arrangements could be made by which we could have an hour or two more time after Questions and before Prorogation.
There are two main points that I want to put. The right hon. Gentleman rested his case on Standing Order No. 12 and the new proviso about the seven days' notice, but my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) is introducing his Bill under Standing Order No. 35, which is a quite different point. If the House wishes, it does enable very speedy action. It says in paragraph (2):
When a bill is presented either in pursuance of an order of the House or under the provisions of paragraph (1) of this order, the Bill shall be read the first time without any question being put, shall be ordered to be read a second time on such day as the Member presenting it shall appoint, and shall be ordered to be printed.
It is quite clear that the House does not intend this seven days' delay rule to apply to this Standing Order, otherwise it would have attached the same proviso to it. The House left open to itself, if it wishes, a provision by which a Bill of this kind can be proceeded with at great speed. There is a distinction, which I put to the right hon. Gentleman, between Standing Order No. 12 and Standing Order No 35.
That is the first point I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman. The other is that the rights and dignity of this House are primarily in the charge of the right hon. Gentleman. He must know that there is very, very deep feeling indeed on this matter, the sort of feeling that will lead to some sort of expression being found for it, if not altogether in accord with the normal ways of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman also, of course, knows that this House determines when Black Rod shall come into it. This House always formally, as my hon. Friend says, shuts the door in the face of Black Rod. This is to preserve our right to determine for ourselves when Black Rod comes into the Chamber. Nobody but a Member of Parliament has the right to enter this Chamber without the leave of the House. This applies to Black Rod, too.
But, of course, there can be in grave moments, moment of deep feeling, all sorts of devices found by which attempts can be made to assert our right which is formally preserved, to make it effective and to determine for ourselves when Black Rod shall come into the Chamber, and it is for us as a House to decide

whether he shall come at 12 o'clock, or 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock. This is, of course, primarily in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to arrange, but he would do it on behalf of the House, as a right of the House. The House has this right, and it may want to seek to assert this right, and if the right hon. Gentleman will not assert it for it, perhaps it may want to try to assert it for itself.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to realise how deep is the feeling on this matter, that this feeling could be very largely allayed if this very simple provision were made by the right hon. Gentleman for delaying the appearance of Black Rod so that we could, either by means of that Bill or, failing that, by a general discussion on this matter, have the means of getting an hour or two at the end of Questions on Thursday. That would not stop us carrying this Motion, as we could if we had that assurance. Of course, if we had that assurance we would not object to Questions ending at 12 o'clock. It is to the House ending at 12 o'clock that we object. If we do not have that assurance, and as, in fact, this Motion means that the House must stop at 12 o'clock, we feel so deeply about it that we shall have no alternative to dividing the House now.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The House will have to come to a decision, but I should like to say this before we come to a decision. It is my duty, clearly, to pay attention to the mood of the House, which I have always attempted to do, and it is also my duty to respect the traditions and practice of the House. The point I must make is this. The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has said that there is very deep feeling indeed on this matter—

Mr. Mellish: On this side.

Mr. Butler: Yes, and on both sides of the House, as on any matter involving compassion and personal problems and controversies arising on an occasion like this. I understand that, but what I do not understand—notice of this matter having been given since July last—is that the Opposition now choosing the business during the remainder of this Session, for these last few days, have not


made any representation about this business. For example, tomorrow the Opposition have indicated that they wish to discuss railway transport questions. We have had no indication that they wish to discuss the rents issue.

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what was proposed by the Government was that we should use one of these days for one of the nationalised industries—out of the three taken in the year—and we have chosen transport; but the Government have chosen the business of the week as a whole.

Mr. Butler: There was no indication by the Opposition that they wished to raise this matter when we originally suggested what the business should be, nor has there been any indication during the summer by the Opposition that they objected to my statement of 27th July about the nature of the business for Thursday. We must pay attention to that. If there had been this deep feeling, I can only feel they would have made representations to me for time for this debate. I had no representation made to me for this debate. This is the first intimation that I have had about it. This does not seem to me to indicate that they have given very deep feeling or consideration to the matter before.
In the circumstances I do not think that we can go back on the arrangement about Prorogation. This has been arranged. Indeed, my reason is not so much that I like it on this occasion but that I think it would be bad to create a precedent departing from the ordinary arrangements for Prorogation, such as notice has been given of, on Thursday.
There is only one more thing that I can say. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen feel so deeply, if the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends wish to make representations that we should make some adjustment in the business tomorrow, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to enter into a discussion on that line, I am perfectly ready to have it. But I think it is my duty to the House to adhere to the arrangements about Prorogation. In the circumstances, that is the best offer I can make. As we have a lot of important business today I think that we had better come to a decision on the matter.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that he would be willing to suspend the Rule for two hours tomorrow?

Mr. Butler: I am suggesting that I would respond to any representation, as we have always done on business from the Opposition, if the Opposition choose to make it and if they give us an opportunity. I should be very willing to listen to any representation.

Mr. Reynolds: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest how my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) can have his Bill on the Order Paper for Second Reading for tomorrow evening?

Mr. Butler: Without reverting to the Bill, I think that the House must have some regard to Standing Orders passed only in February of this year. However good the Bill may be, it is somewhat inhibited, except under the operation of Standing Order No. 35. But I do not see any other way in which we can aid the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) with his Bill. Even if we did, it would have to take its place after a certain number of other Private Members' Bills and, let use face it, in all probability it would be exceedingly difficult to get a Bill through in the remaining two days of the Session. We must have regard to reality.

Mr. Mellish: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must consider this matter from the point of view of the public outside who do not understand our procedure. We have been away three months. We have come back today and we rise on Thursday at midday for reasons best known to hon. Members. All we ask for is two hours at the very most to discuss a matter about which the right hon. Gentleman knows as much as anybody else in the House. To say that it is quite impossible because of so-called procedure is fantastic. No wonder Parliament gets into disrepute.

Mr. Butler: People outside study our procedure more closely than we imagine. They will realise that I have suggested to the Opposition that if two hours are wanted we should try to fit them into


the programme that we have announced. I think that that could be done with good will on both sides.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would not a certain degree of flexibility in the Government's attitude be appropriate when we have been away three months? I think that the right hon. Gentleman might at least have made an effort to change the time of Prorogation. No doubt it would be far more convenient for the House to consider this burning issue of rents on Thursday than it would be at some late hour on Wednesday night. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not extend his offer—and I appreciate that he has made some offer—so as to

take both possibilities into account, namely, a debate on Wednesday night or on Thursday if we can arrange for Prorogation to take place later.

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I appreciate the point of the intervention but I think that we must adhere to the arrangement for Thursday, of which so much notice has been given. We are following precedent. However, I adhere to the offer I have made that if the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends approach us we shall attempt to meet them.

Question put:—

The House divided:Ayes 216, Noes 163.

Division No. 152.]
AYES
[4.53 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Duthie, Sir William
Langford-Holt, J.


Aitken, W. T.
Eden, John
Leavey, J, A.


Allason, James
Errington, Sir Eric
Leburn, Gilmour


Arbuthnot, John
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Atkins, Humphrey
Fell, Anthony
Lilley, F. J. P.


Balniel, Lord
Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Martin


Barber, Anthony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Barlow, Sir John
Foster, John
Longbottom, Charles


Barter, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Longden, Gilbert


Batsford, Brian
Freeth, Denzil
Loveys, Walter H.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Gardner, Edward
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Gibson-Watt, David
McAdden, Stephen


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Glover, Sir Douglas
MacArthur, Ian


Berkeley, Humphry
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)



Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Gough, Frederick
McLaren, Martin


Bidgood, John C.
Gower, Raymond
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bishop, F. P.
Green, Alan
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfrles)


Black, Sir Cyril
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin


Bossom, Clive
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G
Maginnis, John E.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gurden, Harold
Maitland, Sir John


Box, Donald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marten, Neil


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mawby, Ray


Brooman-White, R.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mills, Stratton


Bullard, Denys
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Moore, Sir Thomas


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hay, John
Noble, Michael


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nugent, Sir Richard


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Orr, Capt. L. P. S


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hendry, Forbes
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Cary, Sir Robert
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Page, Graham


Chataway, Christopher
Hocking, Philip N.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hollingworth, John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Peel, John


Cleaver, Leonard
Hopkins Alan
Percival Ian


Cooke, Robert
Hopkins, Alan
Peyton John


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hornby, R. P.
Pickthorn Sir Kenneth


Cordle, John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Corfield, F. V.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (S. Ives)
Pilkington, Capt Richard


Costain, A. P.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pitt Miss Edith


Coulson, J. M.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Powell, J. Enoch


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hughes-Young, Michael
Price David (Eastleigh)


Critchley, Julian
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, J. M. L.


Cunningham, Knox
Jackson, John
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Curran, Charles
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ramsden, James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


de Ferranti, Basil
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rees, Hugh


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Renton, David


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kitson, Timothy
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Doughty, Charles
Lagden, Godfrey
Robertson, Sir David


Duncan, Sir James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roots, William




Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Russell, Ronald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Whitelaw, William


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Seymour, Leslie
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Shaw, M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Simon, Sir Jocelyn
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Turner, Colin
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Speir, Rupert
Vickers, Miss Joan
Woodhouse, C. M.


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Woodnutt, Mark


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Woollam, John


Storey, Sir Samuel
Wall, Patrick
Worsley, Marcus


Studholme, Sir Henry
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold



Talbot, John E.
Watts, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tapsell, Peter
Webster, David
Mr. Prior and Mr. Sharples.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Popplewell, Ernest


Albu, Austen
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne valley)
Prentice, R. E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Probert, Arthur


Allen, scholefield (Crewe)
Hannan, William
Proctor, W. T.


Awbery, Stan
Hart, Mrs. Judlth
Randail, Harry


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Rankin, John


Beaney, Alan
Healey, Denis
Redhead, E. C.


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Reynolds, G. W.


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blyton, William
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Holt, Arthur
Ross, William


Bowles, Frank
Howell, Charles A.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Boyden, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Short, Edward


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hunter, A. E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Skeffington, Arthur


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Small, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Soskice Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Callaghan, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spriggs, Leslie


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Steele, Thomas


Chetwynd, George
Kelley, Richard
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cliffe, Michael
Key, Rt, Hon. C. W.
Stonehouse, John


Collick, Percy
Ledger, Ron
Stones, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Crosland, Anthony
Lipton Marcus
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Logan David
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Loughlin, Charles



Davies, Harold (Leek)

Swingler, Stephen


Deer, George
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sylvester, George


Dodds, Norman
MacColl, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Donnelly, Desmond
McInnes, James
Taylor, John (West Lothlan)


Driberg, Tom
Mackie, John
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McLeavy, Frank
Thorpe, Jeremy


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
McPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Tomney, Frank


Edelman, Maurice
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wade, Donald


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, J.P W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Warbey, William


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Manuel, A. C.
Watkins, Tudor


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mapp, Charles
Weitzman, David


Evans, Albert
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fitch, Alan
Marsh, Richard
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fletcher, Eric
Mellish, R. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Foot, Dingle
Mendelson, J. J.
Whitlock, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Millan, Bruce
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Ginsburg, David
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Owen, Will
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Paget, R. T.
Wilson, Rt Hon. Harold (Huyton>


Greenwood, Anthony
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Witerbottom, R. E.


Grey, Charles
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pavitt, Laurence
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Peart, Frederick



Grimond, J.
Pentland, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gunter, Ray
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Mr. Lawson and




Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed [22nd July] on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Which Amendment was, to Clause 13 (Appeal in cases of contempt of court), page 8, line 40, after "one", to insert:
and section two:—

Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

5.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): When the debate on this Amendment was adjourned, on 22nd July, I was explaining that it was consequential on the Amendment which the House had just passed. It merely seeks to clarify beyond any doubt the time for leave to appeal.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, we were discussing this on the 22nd July, and I think that it is now clear that the effect of this Amendment is to extend the period to 14 days for appeal, both in cases that arise under this Section and those that arise under the earlier Section of the Bill. That is the result of Amendments which were considered in Committee, when we originally pressed that the seven days should be extended to 21 days. We then compromised on the figure of 14. We are very glad to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 42, leave out "that section" and insert "the said section one".—[The Attorney-General.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 15.—(APPEAL IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS.)

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 10, line 2, after "any", to insert "civil".

The Attorney-General: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Perhaps it would be convenient to consider with this Amendment the Amendment in page 10, line 3, to leave out "whether civil or criminal". The two seem to go together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I believe that the next one is consequential upon the one which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has moved.

Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I agree that it would be convenient to discuss these two Amendments together. It would be difficult to discuss one without referring to the other.
These Amendments give rise to a consideration of a matter which, in our opinion, is one of very considerable constitutional importance—perhaps one of the gravest subjects that arise out of our discussions on this Bill. I believe that it would be no exaggeration to say that if Clause 15 stands in its present form, and if our Amendment is not accepted, then there will be one of the most serious inroads into the most cherished liberties and fundamental safeguards of the subject that even this Government have ever proposed.
There is no need to remind you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that in dealing with habeas corpus we are dealing with something which lies very close to the heart of everybody who cares for the history of civil liberty in this country. The whole of the doctrine, and the whole of the principles which surround habeas corpus, have come to have a very lasting and widespread significance for the free living people of this country and for those whose legal institutions have followed from ours.
For centuries past it has been recognised throughout this realm that once a competent court has made absolute a writ of habeas corpus, the person involved is then free for all time, that there is no appeal from that decision, and that there is no calling back the decision which a competent court has made, just as, in our legal system, an acquittal by a jury puts an end to any question of an individual's guilt—whether he be acquitted on facts or on a technicality. Once there is a decision by the jury or the judge that a man is innocent, he is free from any further attempts by criminal courts to prosecute him. There is no appeal by the prosecution.
In the same way, it has been established that once a person can prove to a


competent court that his liberty is endangered, and he has satisfied that court that he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, then that is an end to the matter. Clause 15 arises in this way under Section 1 of the Bill we have abolished the Attorney-General's fiat and have provided for appeals to the House of Lords in criminal cases. It has become necessary, however, to deal specifically with matters of habeas corpus, because all matters of habeas corpus have hitherto always been regarded—rightly—as having been on a special and different footing from all other types of case.
Until recently it was regarded as well established law—and was certainly the practice of anybody who wanted to assert his right to freedom, to protest against his detention—to go from one judge to another until he got an order. He could even go to the Lord Chancellor. There may have been some doubt about the origin of this rule, and in the recent series of cases known as the Hastings cases a good deal of doubt was expressed as to how it grew up. The practice is there, however.
It is the intention of Clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill to clarify the position for the future. They would no longer give a person the right to go from one judge to another, either in the Queen's Bench or in the Chancery Division. They no longer give him the right to go to the Lord Chancellor. That is expressly taken away by Section 14. But what they put in its place is the right to go to a judge, and if he can get an order from a judge he is free. If he cannot get an order from a judge, he can go to the Divisional Court, and then—if he cannot get an order from the Divisional Court—with leave he can go to the House of Lords.
With all that we are in entire agreement, but we disagree with this revolutionary change which has been introduced and which gives the prosecution the right, if the man does get an order, to appeal to the House of Lords. There is no precedent whatsoever for that, and, as the Lord Chancellor said in another place in introducing this Measure, he recognised that it was something entirely new and entirely novel. Therefore, I appeal to the House, in all sincerity, to

examine this matter very carefully before accepting what the Government are now proposing.
I think it desirable to place on record in the language of distinguished Lord Chancellors what has been said on the subject in the past. In 1890—seventy years ago—Lord Halsbury laid down the doctrine quite clearly, and it is worth while the House remembering what he said in the case of Cox v. Hakes reported in 15 Appeal Cases on page 514. Lord Halsbury said:
For a period extending as far back as our legal history, the writ of habeas corpus has been regarded as one of the most important safeguards of the liberty of the subject. If upon the return to that writ it was adjudged that no legal ground was made to appear justifying detention, the consequence was immediate release from custody. If release was refused, a person detained might make a fresh application to every judge or every court in turn, and each court or judge was bound to consider the question independently and not to be influenced by the previous decisions refusing discharge. If discharge followed, the legality of that discharge could never be brought in question.
Then Lord Halsbury went on to say on page 522—because there was there the consideration that some Act of Parliament might infringe this historic principle—
It is the right of personal freedom in this country which is in debate"—
and that is what is in debate today—
and I for one should be very slow to believe, except it was done by express legislation, that the policy of centuries has been suddenly reversed and the right of personal freedom is no longer to be determined summarily and finally, but it is to be subject to the delay and uncertainty of ordinary litigation, so that the final determination upon that question may only be arrived at by the last Court of Appeal.
Lord Halsbury would have turned in his grave if he had heard of the proposition which the Attorney-General and Lord Chancellor are putting before us. Lord Halsbury said that it could only be done by "express legislation". That is what the Government are proposing to do and they are proposing to hoodwink the House and the country into believing that they are doing something innocuous. They are turning back a tide of history in a sphere which has been of such cherished importance to us all for so long.
What did Lord Birkenhead say on the subject? He reiterated the doctrine in


no more uncertain or less graphic terms. In the O'Brien case—1923 Appeal Cases, page 609—Lord Birkenhead said:
The writ of habeas corpus is of immemorial antiquity, an instance of its use occurring in the thirty-third year of Edward I. It has through the ages been jealously maintained by courts of law as a check upon the illegal usurpation of power by the Executive at the cost of the liege."—
that is what we are discussing tonight—
In the course of time, certain rules and principles have been evolved; and many of these have been declared so frequently and by Such high authority as to become elementary. Perhaps the most important for our present purpose is that which lays it down that if the writ is once directed to issue and discharge ordered by a competent court, no appeal lies to any superior court.
There we have it from the words of Lord Halsbury and Lord Birkenhead. It has always been adopted and thought of as elementary, as axiomatic and has been written into all the text books. Until this Government came along no one dreamed that anyone would have the audacity to put forward a proposal for this revolutionary and quite unnecessary change.
I must now address myself to the very flimsy arguments which the Attorney-General put forward in Committee in an attempt to justify this provision. If the Solicitor-General will forgive me I will not deal with what he said on Second Reading, but I thought that he seemed to say that the change did not matter—at any rate, he did not seem to think that it mattered very much. We regard it as important that we should maintain the principle that there should be no appeal from habeas corpus.
It would not be so bad—though still rather bad—if this Bill were now before us in the form in which it was introduced in another place because when the Bill was in another place Section 1 then operated. It provided that it was only in cases of general public importance that there could be an appeal by the prosecution, as by the accused, to the House of Lords.
It was pointed out in the House of Lords that even though that might be all right—which a lot of my right hon. and hon. Friends do not believe that it is—in an ordinary criminal appeal, it was certainly all wrong in the case of habeas corpus. Therefore, what is now Section 15 (3) was introduced in another place

for the sole and express purpose of giving an additional safeguard to the accused.
5.15 p.m.
When I say the "accused" I mean the person wrongfully detained. Subsection (3) was introduced so that a person wrongfully detained and who had failed to get a rule absolute for habeas corpus could go to the House of Lords and get justice and redress without having to say that his case involved a point of law of general public importance.
It looks to me, therefore, that the appeal to the House of Lords having been widened for the benefit of the person wrongfully detained, the House of Lords, as if by a complete accident, certainly by an oversight and without any arguments in justification, then proceeded to widen still further from its original form the right to appeal now given to the prosecution in cases of habeas corpus. It is that which the Attorney-General attempted to defend in Committee. When the matter was debated in Committee there was then a different form of Amendment. The Amendment which we then proposed was to the effect that there should be no appeal to the House of Lords against discharge, that is to say, against the release of a man, in all cases of habeas corpus.
We had an argument about the distinction between civil and criminal cases. The object of this Amendment is to limit the prosecution's right of appeal to civil cases and to maintain the existing position in respect of all applications for habeas corpus of a criminal nature.
The reason why, in an attempt to reach a satisfactory compromise with the Government on this vital issue, we have made this concession is that we concede that there is some difference between civil cases of habeas corpus and criminal cases. There are civil cases of habeas corpus in which the liberty of the subject is not directly involved. For example, there are cases of the guardianship of infants, or a dispute between husband and wife whether an infant should be with one parent or another or should be taken out of jurisdiction. Those matters often are adjudicated on habeas corpus application, and I concede that where


the custody of an infant is concerned, I cannot pretend that the liberty of the subject is involved in the same way as in the classic cases of habeas corpus on which the foundations of personal freedom in this country have been built.
It was habeas corpus which enabled this country to assert the rights of slaves. Slaves were brought here to be free men. Habeas corpus has been used to justify and enforce the rights of political asylum for which we are justly renowned. I therefore appreciate that there is a distinction between civil and criminal cases.
If there is an appeal to the House of Lords in civil cases by the prosecution, then earlier Clauses of the Bill protect and safeguard the individual from detention, but there are no similar safeguards where the prosecution decides to take an appeal to the House of Lords in a criminal case. In such cases, in which a divisional court has said that a man is wrongfully detained and should be set at liberty, and in which, for hundreds of years, he would have left the court a free man, under the Bill he will no longer be free because the prosecution can appeal to the House of Lords and keep him in custody while that appeal continues. This is not only novel and revolutionary, as the Lord Chancellor said, but it is contrary to our basic and fundamental concepts. It is quite unnecessary and, in addition, is anomalous.
Hon. Members will find from Clause 15 that if a person goes to a single judge and asks for a writ of habeas corpus, and the judge, having examined the case, studied the law and heard the evidence, says that he ought to go free, there will be no appeal at all. By making that concession the Attorney-General must face the extraordinary anomaly of arguing that a decision by a single judge, fallible though a single judge may be, should be final and should regularise the freedom of the man concerned for all time, yet if the judge declines to issue the writ and the matter goes to a divisional court and is heard by three judges, their decision is open to appeal.
Three judges may be less infallible than one—I do not know; but the fact remains that if those three judges, having examined the case, heard arguments

about the law and studied the evidence, say that the man has been wrongfully detained and should go free, then the Attorney-General wants to take the case to the House of Lords and to keep the man detained while he takes it there. That is the position if the three judges decide, in Lord Birkenhead's words, This is an
illegal usurpation of power by the Executive.
This is how we are reversing the custom of this country over the centuries. The more I think about this the more I am appalled by it. I have re-read the speech which the Attorney-General made at the second sitting in Committee. He seemed to argue that whereas one judge was unlikely to make a mistake, three judges might make a mistake. I could not follow the logic of that argument. Surely the duty of the single judge and the duty of the divisional court is the same—to examine the case and to decide whether a writ should be issued. But if the single judge decides that the man should go free, then he goes free, whereas if the three judges so decide, then there is an appeal by the prosecution.
The reason that the Clause is so obnoxious and offends our sense of justice is that it is desirable that there should be some finality about these matters. Where a man's freedom is at stake, once a competent court has established a decision to free him, that should be an end to the matter, just as when a person is acquitted by a jury at the Old Bailey.
The Attorney-General then said that in the interests of clarifying the law it was desirable that the prosecution should have a right of appeal, otherwise the divisional court might have reached a wrong decision and this might stand. But that has been the case for centuries and it has not produced an injustice, inconvenience or embarrassment. In fact, it has been a good thing.
Even if there are cases in which it is desirable to clarify the law and to test a divisional court decision when it decides to set a man free, there is no guarantee that the Attorney-General will always clarify the law. Or are we to assume from his remarks that whenever a divisional court grants a writ of habeas corpus and sets a man free, the Attorney-General, in his zeal for clarifying the law, will always contest that opinion of


the divisional court and take the matter to the House of Lords? If that is the situation, it is a pretty kettle of fish. That cannot be a good reason to justify this mischievous provision.
The Attorney-General put forward another curious argument. At one stage he seemed almost driven to say that this provision was being inserted solely for the benefit of foreign powers and that the centuries-old traditions of British justice were being uprooted in the interests of foreign powers. He talked about extradition rights—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but I find it very difficult to relate this argument to the Amendment, which relates purely to civil cases.

Mr. Fletcher: It relates purely to criminal cases. As the Bill stands, an appeal will lie in any proceedings, whether civil or criminal. In my Amendments I propose to delete the words "whether civil or criminal" and to insert the word "civil". The result will be that there would be an appeal in civil proceedings against the order to release, but the position as it stands at present would remain intact in criminal cases.
I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. I am concerned to preserve the position exclusively in criminal cases. On the other hand, I prefer not to pursue what I intended to say about extradition, because that subject will more appropriately arise on the next Amendment.
On these Amendments, I conclude by saying that, for the reasons that I have given, I regard the proposal as it stands as monstrous, a travesty of British justice, and a quite unnecessary and unjustifiable invasion of the fundamental right of liberty in this country.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: May I say, quite shortly, that I very strongly support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher)? I raised this matter in detail on another Amendment. I do not propose to repeat what I said then except to say that I regard this as a very dangerous innovation and I hope that the Amendment will be accepted for that reason.

The Attorney-General: I have listened with interest to all that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has said in support of these two Amendments. He repeated every one, I think, of the arguments that had been advanced on Committee stage; in fact, he incorporated in his speech large quotations from the speech made in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). I am sorry that he did so without acknowledgment to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North has repeated his support of these proposals without repeating the argument which he advanced very clearly in Committee. This is, in fact, the third occasion on which this point has come up for discussion in the course of the passage of the Bill in this House. It was raised by Amendments in Committee by the hon. Member for Islington, East, as he has raised it today. In reply, I made a fairly long speech explaining, as fully as I could, the reasons why we were unable to accept the proposed Amendments. I am sorry to find that the hon. Gentleman appears not to have appreciated my argument fully.
The same point was raised on Report in this House by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North when he moved an Amendment to Clause 5. He then explained the intended purpose of that Amendment and of these two Amendments, and I replied to that debate. I have read again all that was said in each of those debates and I should say at the beginning that I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Islington, East and the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, and their friends who have expressed their support for this proposal, by saying that we do not think that it would be right to accept these Amendments.
Having dealt with this matter fairly fully on one occasion and more fully on another, I can only repeat the reasons which I have already advanced for our attitude. It would, I think, be discourteous of me not to remind hon. Members of our reasons, and I do not want to be or appear to be in the least discourteous.
The hon. Member for Islington, East, in moving this Amendment, used strong language about it. At one stage he talked about our attempt to hoodwink the House. There is no justification whatever for that statement because we fully explained, as I have already indicated, on more than one occasion what we were doing and our reasons for doing it.
The hon. Gentleman said that this was an Amendment of very considerable constitutional importance and that if Clause 15 stands it would make a most serious inroad into one of the fundamental safeguards of liberty. That is strong language and I replied to that fully in Committee. In my opinion, it is entirely unwarranted language. It has been made perfectly clear that those who advocate this Amendment seem to believe that we are infringing a high constitutional principle. We completely part company with them on that. They assert that it is a fundamental principle that no one released as a result of a habeas corpus application in a criminal matter should ever be liable to lose his liberty if the decision of the court which ordered his release is subsequently on appeal held to be wrong. That is the contention. In my submission, the contention is ill-founded.
Passages from Lord Halsbury's speech in the case of Cox v. Hakes in 1890 and Lord Birkenhead's speech in O'Brien's case in 1923 have been cited more than once. When one is considering Lord Halsbury's speech and the weight that should be attached to it, two matters should be remembered. First, Lord Halsbury was speaking in relation to an appeal from a refusal to order the applicant's discharge on a habeas corpus application in a civil matter, and, as the passage cited shows, his view was based on the belief, now held to be erroneous, that the applicant had the right to go to every court and ask each court and judge to consider the matter independently. Secondly, Lord Halsbury was speaking seventeen years before the passage of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907.
I do not want to suggest for one moment that the writ of habeas corpus is not an important safeguard of the liberty of the subject. It is a very important

weapon indeed, available for use for the protection of individual liberty and for the preservation of freedom under the law. It is a weapon which is fairly frequently used, and more frequently outside these shores. It provides an effective way in which the legality of the deprivation of liberty can be challenged. But this is only one way in which the legality of imprisonment or detention can be challenged before the courts.
In 1890 there was no Court of Criminal Appeal. Since 1907, the legality of a conviction at Assizes or Quarter Sessions can be challenged before that Court and since 1907 both the prosecution and the accused can, if they get the necessary leave, appeal to the House of Lords and seek to get the decision reversed. The hon. Member for Islington, East did not refer to that. Where there is a successful appeal by the prosecution from the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal quashing a conviction the man whose conviction was quashed does not go free. Provision is made, similar to the provision in this Bill, for his being held or released on bail pending the hearing of the appeal. If the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal quashing the conviction on appeal is reversed by the Lords the man serves the sentence imposed on him. That is a matter which the hon. Gentleman ought to face.
Bearing in mind that an application for a writ of habeas corpus is in a way a piece of machinery of importance by which the question of liberty can be brought before the courts; why should an applicant for release from custody, when the machinery is by a writ of habeas corpus, get a release and not be liable to reimprisonment if the decision of the court which released him is reversed in the House of Lords? Why should that be the consequence, if the consequence when the question goes up by appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal and then to the House of Lords, is quite different? That is the essence of the matter.

Mr. Fletcher: The Attorney-General must know perfectly well that there are limitations on the use of the habeas corpus machinery where the machinery of criminal appeal is available.

The Attorney-General: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has not followed the argument. Perhaps it was my fault. I


was saying that one must bear in mind that when Lord Halsbury was speaking there was no Court of Criminal Appeal, and that when there was a Court of Criminal Appeal the right of appealing to the House of Lords was given to both prosecutor and accused, subject to conditions. I remind the hon. Gentleman that one of the consequences of that was that if a man was released by the Court of Criminal Appeal and the decision of that court was reversed by the House of Lords, he was rearrested, as happened in the first case under the Criminal Justice Act.
I was saying that there could be an appeal from a conviction and that another way in which one could test the legality of imprisonment or detention was by applying for a writ of habeas corpus. I was putting the point, which the hon. Gentleman must face, that if, as we want, we are to give a right of appeal to the House of Lords in habeas corpus cases to both sides when there is a question of custody or imprisonment, for reasons which I will explain it would be wholly illogical and wrong that the consequences of the appeal, if successfully brought by the prosecution, should be dependent on whether the machinery by which the case came before the House of Lords was an appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal or an appeal from the divisional court on habeas corpus.
There is other machinery by which matters which may affect personal liberty can be brought before the courts. Writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition come before the divisional court and the Bill gives the right of appeal to the House of Lords from the decision of the divisional court in those cases.
Another suggestion made by hon. Gentlemen opposite is that where a matter comes to the House of Lords in that way and the House of Lords reverses the decision of the divisional court, then the decision of the House of Lords should not take effect. They proposed that if a matter comes before a divisional court and that court orders a man's release and the House of Lords holds that the divisional court was wrong in law, nonetheless there should be no interference with the effect of the decision of the divisional court. That seems to us, after careful consideration, to be entirely wrong. To alter that situation is not a matter of

considerable constitutional importance. It is logical and right that the effect of the divisional court's decision should be altered and the remedy of applying to the court for a writ of habeas corpus is in no way interfered with by that.
Previous to this Measure, there has been no right of appeal to the House of Lords on habeas corpus in criminal matters and we seek to provide a right of appeal in a criminal matter whether the case comes before the divisional court on certiorari, habeas corpus, case stated, or in any other way.
It is all very well to talk about an invasion of freedom, but freedom under the law does not mean freedom from imprisonment because of a decision in an inferior court which has been held to be wrong. If we are to give a right of appeal to the House of Lords in those cases then, just as it was in relation to appeals under the Criminal Appeal Act, it must be right, if the Divisional Court has gone wrong and its decision has to be put right by the House of Lords, that the decision of the House of Lords should have effect.
5.45 p.m.
The hon. Member said that he had no objection to an applicant for habeas corpus being able to appeal to the House of Lords, but he thought that the prosecution should not have that right. However, the Amendments would completely destroy any right of appeal by either the applicant for the writ of habeas corpus or by the respondent.

Mr. Fletcher: Mr. Fletcher indicated dissent.

The Attorney-General: It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. If he will study his own Amendments he will see that there is no other conclusion. He is seeking to limit the operation of Clause 15 to habeas corpus in civil matters, and if the Amendments were carried the result would be to remove the right of appeal on habeas corpus in criminal matters. I know that that is not what he wants to do, but that is the effect of his Amendments.
He argued his case today in the same way as he did in Committee and I have replied to it fully, I hope, but perhaps more shortly than I then did because I dealt with it as fully as I could on that occasion. We have carefully considered this matter and we do not think


that the proposal warrants any of the strong language which has been used about it on a number of occasions.
We think that it is right to give a right of appeal in habeas corpus cases and, as a point of law of considerable importance may arise on which it might be desirable to get the ruling of the House of Lords, and as it might arise in one case when the respondent has failed before the divisional court and in another when the respondent has succeeded, it is only right that, if a right of appeal, with leave, is given to one side, it should also be given to the other.
Bearing in mind the length of time that one has had appeals by way of case stated and effect given to the decision, it is a novel proposition, when we are giving rights of appeal in criminal cases for the first time that, where the divisional court has gone wrong in law and gone wrong in releasing a man from custody, none the less, when that decision is put right, the man should not be returned to lawful custody.

Sir Frank Soskice: I propose to reply only briefly to the Attorney-General's argument, which I think my hon. Friends will have found wholly unsatisfactory. The right hon. and learned Gentleman called attention to the fact that we had reverted to this matter on no fewer than three occasions. That indicates a measure of our feeling and it is obviously the case that we can now voice our further protest only in the Division Lobby which, I hope, my right hon. and hon. Friends will do.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated his view that in 1890 Lord Halsbury proceeded upon a misconception of the law of habeas corpus which preceded the passing of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, by seventeen years. The right hon. and learned Gentleman elaborated that argument by pointing out that when Lord Halsbury voiced his opinion there was no right of appeal in criminal cases. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not say in those circumstances is whether he also disapproves of the language of Lord Birkenhead in 1923 in the case of Rex v. O'Brien.
When Lord Birkenhead spoke, the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, had been on

the Statute Book for about sixteen years. Yet Lord Birkenhead in 1923 used language of the same intensity as that which had been used by Lord Halsbury in 1890. I ask the House to say that both those great lawyers spoke truly of the pith and substance of English law in pronouncing so strongly on the writ.
The substance of the case here is that there is something very special about the writ of habeas corpus. It is the particular measure with which the development of English law has entrusted the preservation from unlawful detention of the individual. It has a special and unique character, and it seems to me that my hon. Friend was justified in using the language that he did to show how strongly the case appeared to him to infringe on what was really something in the nature of a sacred and basic principle of the English common and statute law.
I do not think that it will advance the matter if I again traverse the same ground—

The Attorney-General: It will not.

Sir F. Soskice: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it will not.

The Attorney-General: I was not addressing the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I was talking to my hon. Friend on my left.

Sir F. Soskice: The right hon and learned Gentleman gave me a sweet smile and said, "If will not", and I naturally assumed that his remark was addressed to me. If I am mistaken, it encourages me to prolong the attempt I am making to get the right hon. and learned Gentleman to change his mind.

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will never do that.

Sir F. Soskice: Being firmly convinced that the Government have made up their mind about this, the only thing that I can do now is to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to take the matter to the Division Lobby to voice their strong protests at a quite unwarrantable intrusion on the common law and that part of it which safeguards the rights of individuals.

Question put, That "civil" be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 212.

Division No. 153.]
AYES
[5.53 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Popplewell, Ernest


Albu, Austen
Hannan, William
Prentice, R. E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Probert, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Randall, Harry


Awbery, Stan
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Rankin, John


Bacon, Miss Alice
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Reynolds, G. W.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Beaney, Alan
Holt, Arthur
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E)
Houghton, Douglas
Ross, William


Blackburn, F,
Howell, Charles A.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon, E.


Blyton, William
Hoy, James H.
Short, Edward


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hunter, A. E.
Skeffington, Arthur


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Small, William


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, s.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Spriggs, Leslie


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Steele, Thomas


Callaghan, James
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Chetwynd, George
Kelley, Richard
Stonehouse, John


Cliffe, Michael
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stones, William


Collick, Percy
Ledger, Ron
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Logan, David
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Loughlin, Charles
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swingler, Stephen


Deer, George
MacColl, James
Sylvester, George


Dodds, Norman
McInnes, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Donnelly, Desmond.
Mackie, John
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Driberg, Tom
McLeavy, Frank
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dugdaie, Rt. Hon. John
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Tomney, Frank


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Manuel, A. C.
Wade, Donald


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mapp, Charles
Warbey, William


Evans, Albert
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Watkins, Tudor


Fitch, Alan
Marsh, Richard
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Eric
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Foot, Dingle
Mendelson, J. J.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Millan, Bruce
White, Mrs. Eirene


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mitchison, G. R.
Whitlock, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moyle, Arthur
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oliver, G. H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gourlay, Harry
Owen, Will
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Greenwood, Anthony
Padley, W. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Grey, Charles
Paget, R. T.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Grimond, J.
Pavltt, Laurence
Woof, Robert


Gunter, Ray
Peart, Frederick
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pentland, Norman



Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Redhead and Mr. Lawson.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Aitken, W. T.
Brooman-White, R.
Crowder, F. P.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Curran, Charles


Allason, James
Bryan, Paul
Currie, G. B. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Bullard, Denys
Dalkeith, Earl of


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bullard, Wing Commander Eric
de Ferranti, Basil


Balniel, Lord
Burden, F. A.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Barber, Anthony
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Barlow, Sir John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Doughty, Charles


Barter, John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Drayson, G, B.


Batsford, Brian
Cary, Sir Robert
Duncan, Sir James


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Channon, H. P. G.
Eden, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Chataway, Christopher
Errington, Sir Eric


Berkeley, Humphry
Chichester-Clark, R,
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Bevins, Rt Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Farr, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Cleaver, Leonard
Fell, Anthony


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cooke, Robert
Finlay, Graeme


Bishop, F. P.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Black, Sir Cyril
Cordle, John
Foster, John


Bossom, Clive
Corfield, F. v.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Costain, A. P.
Freeth, Denzil


Box, Donald
Coulson, J. M.
Gardner, Edward


Boyle, Sir Edward
Craddock, Sir Beresford
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Brewis, John
Critchley, Julian
Glover, Sir Douglas




Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Longbottom, Charles
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Gough, Frederick
Longden, Gilbert
Russell, Ronald


Gower, Raymond
Loveys, Walter H.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Seymour, Leslie


Green, Alan
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Gresham Cooke, R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Shaw, M.


Gurden, Harold
McAdden, Stephen
Shepherd, William


Hall, John (Wycombe)
MacArthur, Ian
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
McLaren, Martin
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Speir, Rupert


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maddan, Martin
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maginnis, John E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maitland, Sir John
Storey, Sir Samuel


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hay, John
Marten, Neil
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Matthews, Gordon (Merlden)
Talbot, John E.


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Hendry, Forbes
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Mills, Stratton
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Montgomery, Fergus
Turner, Colin


Hocking, Philip N.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hollingworth, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Nugent, Sir Richard
Vane, W. M. F.


Hopkins, Alan
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hornby, R. P.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricla
Page, Graham
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wall, Patrick


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Peel, John
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hughes-Young, Michael
Percival, Ian
Watts, James


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Peyton, John
Webster, David


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Whitelaw, William


Jackson, John
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pitt, Miss Edith
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pott, Percivall
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Powell, J. Enoch
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Prior, J. M. L.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Kitson, Timothy
Ramsden, James
Woodnutt, Mark


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Woollam, John


Leavey, J. A.
Rees, Hugh
Worsley, Marcus


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Renton, David
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas



Lilley, F. J. P.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lindsay, Martin
Robertson, Sir David
Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Noble.


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Roots, William

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 10, line 4, at the end to insert:
(2) No appeal shall lie against any order for the release of the person restrained made on an application for habeas corpus in any proceedings involving consideration of the Extradition Acts or the Fugitive Offenders Acts.
A few moments ago the Attorney-General was reproving me—rather ungraciously, I thought—for the fact that when I made some quotations from Lord Halsbury and Lord Birkenhead I failed to refer to the fact that at an earlier stage in our proceedings my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) had made them. That enables me to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this Amendment was inspired by speeches made by two of his hon. Friends in the Second Reading debate and in Committee. For that, if for no other reason, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may give the Amend-

ment more consideration than he did to the previous one.
It was the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner), followed by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), who pointed out that applications for habeas corpus which involve consideration of the Extradition Acts or the Fugitive Offenders Act stand in a different category from all other applications for habeas corpus, because when we are dealing with an application for habeas corpus arising out of some criminal proceedings in this country, in most cases the person who alleges that he is wrongfully detained has stood his trial, whereas when an application is made in respect of extradition, in most cases the person wrongfully detained has not stood his trial; the merits of his case have not been inquired into by the foreign court.
As the hon. Member for Billericay pointed out, where proceedings under


the extradition Acts or the Fugitive Offenders Act are contemplated by the Executive, in order that it may fulfil its duties, as an Executive, to a foreign Government, in most cases the merits of the case in respect of which the unfortunate individual is wanted for extradition still have to be investigated abroad. The validity of an extradition order made by a magistrate is normally tested by an application for habeas corpus and it seems to us that in this case, above all, if a court makes an order that the extradition Acts do not apply, and that the man is wrongfully detained and should be set at liberty, that order should be final and should not be regarded as the sort of order which may be open to challenge up to the House of Lords.
It is very unfortunate for the person concerned if he has to face not only a series of trials in this country to determine whether he should be extradited, but afterwards a further series of trials in some other country to which he may be extradited—whether to Russia or to the United States of America does not seem to matter, because extradition is a very serious thing. The criminal codes of other countries do not follow the pattern of the British criminal code. Although we have extradition treaties and observe them in order to fulfil our obligations to foreign Governments, so far as I know it has never been suggested, until the Attorney-General suggested it, that we might be in default of our obligations to foreign Governments if we did not give the prosecution the right of appeal to the House of Lords in a matter of extradition.
In Committee, the Attorney-General said that that was his justification for the whole idea of allowing appeals by the prosecution at all. He said:
It seems to us that it would be very difficult to defend a provision whereby a person who had obtained a writ of habeas corpus in the divisional court should"—
It seems to me that a "not" has been left out there—
in those circumstances be liable to be extradited even if the decision of the divisional court were to be reversed on appeal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 14th July, 1960; c. 86.]
I understand from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there should be a "not" there: as a rule the observations of the Attorney-General make

sense, although one does not always agree with them, but this did not seem to make sense when I read it. We now have it on record that the Attorney-General was putting forward the proposition that we could not defend our position with foreign Governments if, when a person had obtained a writ of habeas corpus in a matter of extradition, the prosecution did not have the right to challenge the decision of a divisional court to grant a writ of habeas corpus.
That proposition is surely fallacious. Through the centuries there has never been an appeal by the prosecution in a habeas corpus case. There has been no right of appeal. Has any foreign Government ever complained of the fact that a grant of a writ by a single judge is final and cannot be called into question? Have we ever had any complaint that we have failed scrupulously to observe our obligations under the extradition Acts? There never has been a right of appeal to the prosecution to the House of Lords. It seems to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was using a very bogus argument when he spoke on this matter in Committee.
I call in aid what was said by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South, who made two very cogent speeches in Committee. I am sorry that the hon. Member is not present in the Chamber now, because I am sure that he would agree with what I say. I hope that the Attorney-General will recognise that, whatever reservations he may have with regard to applications in criminal cases arising out of criminal suits in this country, we should be particularly scrupulous to regard and protect the rights of innocent people—I say "innocent" because they have not been found guilty of any offence—who have wanted to stand their trial before some criminal court in some foreign country. If any such person previous to extradition is entitled to be free, that should be the end of the matter and he should not be subject to the distress and uncertainty of any further trial.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): This Amendment seeks to preclude an appeal by the person wishing to uphold the legality of the detention of an applicant for habeas corpus in the case, in the exceptional case, of proceedings under the Extradition Acts or the Fugitive Offenders Act. I would remind


the House of the background against which we are considering this Amendment. First, there is the general background which was put so clearly and cogently during the last debate by my right hon. and learned Friend. For over a hundred years we have had appeals by prosecutors against acquittals by courts other than juries; and, of course, a successful appeal by the prosecutor in those circumstances can involve the liberty of the subject. A successful appeal can involve a sentence of imprisonment, whereas under the judgment appealed from the accused would have gone free.
My right hon. and learned Friend reminded the House further that under the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, this House expressly provided for appeals by the prosecutor against an acquittal by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Of course, in addition to that, this House by decisions taken on this Bill in passing the Clauses which we have passed, has already extended the prosecutor's rights of appeal in this class of case. It has extended the prosecutor's rights because we now have the power on the part of the prosecutor to appeal from the Divisional Court to the House of Lords in any criminal case or matter.
In addition, by relaxing the fetters on appeal by the prosecutor under the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, we have extended the right to appeal; and indeed, the Opposition, for reasons that were perfectly plainly expressed, desired to remove the fetters further. That is the first thing. The general background shows that it is by no means exceptional. Indeed, one might say it is the general rule now in our law that a prosecutor can appeal against an acquittal on a point of law, the verdict of a jury being the natural exception.
Further, this Amendment must be viewed against the decision taken by the House on the last Amendment, when the House decided after a division that there should be no general provision precluding appeals against an order for release in habeas corpus proceedings arising in a criminal case or matter. The question before the House on this Amendment is: should we make an exception? In spite of the general background, in spite of the decision taken on the last Amendment, should we, exceptionally, say that in cases under the

Extradition Acts or the Fugitive Offenders Act there shall be no appeal against an order for release?
6.15 p.m.
Shall we say that although there shall be an appeal against an order for release in the case of an ordinary person in custody in this country, for example, a person detained under Part V of the Mental Health Act, nevertheless, in these two cases there shall be no appeal against an order for release?
I ask the House on what possible principle could we justify such an exemption? Indeed, such differences as exist point all the other way. These are Acts giving reciprocal rights in this country to those we enjoy in other countries. May I give an example to the House of the way this works? Take the case of a fraud in Italy. There might be a particularly cruel fraud in which a number of humble people were deprived of their means. One knows the type of fraud, it is well known to our own criminal courts. In addition, the perpetrator of the fraud might actually be convicted in Italy. With respect, the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) was not right in saying that the Extradition Acts do not apply to persons who have been convicted. I see that the hon. Gentleman now recognises that they apply equally to persons who have been convicted.
Take the case of such a person who has been convicted, and jumps his bail during the appeal, or escapes from custody. He comes before the magistrates in this country for an extradition order which the magistrates allow. He then makes an application for a writ of habeas corpus on which a point of law arises. We are here solely concerned with the point of law. I am sure that hon. and learned Gentlemen or hon. Gentlemen with experience of this type of case will recognise that time and again the point of law is a purely technical one. For example, it may be whether a warrant was properly backed, as we had in a recent case—whether the sticking on of a label on the back of the warrant amounted to proper backing. That sort of case arises time and again; and, of course, it is perfectly right that it should be adjudicated on with strictness by our courts, since the liberty of the subject is in question. But why is


one to say that there shall be no appeal from a decision on a technicality of that sort, or rather that we should allow the accused to appeal but not the prosecutor?
Suppose in the case that I have given the Divisional Court does allow an appeal on a technicality. On the proposal of the Government there can be an appeal to the House of Lords to ascertain whether that point of law is well founded, just as in all the other criminal cases which the House has just decided shall come under that provision. Why should not this—particularly, as I say, when we owe a duty to foreign countries because they extend reciprocal rights to us? So I submit to the House that there is no reason at all for making an exceptional case of these cases which arise under the Extradition Acts or under the Fugitive Offenders Act. In my submission, such differences as one can ascertain point in the other direction, that we should be justified in seeking the judgment of the House of Lords as a valuable tribunal of law in this country on such points that do arise, whether at the instance of the prosecutor or the accused.

Sir F. Soskice: The Solicitor-General asked upon what principle we could seek to justify the exclusion for which we now ask in the Amendment under debate.
The considerations which actuated my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) were, I think, largely pragmatic. He was hoping to save something out of the wreck. What he has done—and, in my opinion, perfectly rightly done—is to select a case which, I would submit, is particularly a precedent in which the freed person would be faced with the possibility of proceedings going up to the House of Lords. The Solicitor-General posits the case of the divisional court having let somebody off as a result of a technicality. After all, the word "technicality" is somewhat loosely used.
In the assumed circumstances, the divisional court would have let somebody off on the ground that he had been detained in circumstances in which the law does not allow his detention. It does not advance the matter very much further, in a great many cases at any rate, to say that the ground on which

he obtained his release from the divisional court is technical. Is it? The law allows people to be detained only if the requirements of the law have been strictly complied with and, if they have not been strictly complied with, even if the failure is of a somewhat technical nature, it is perfectly right that the individual concerned should be set at liberty.

The Solicitor-General: Is not the right hon. and learned Member identifying the law with what is declared by the divisional court without the opportunity of review by the House of Lords? We could see no reason for adding that rider.

Sir F. Soskice: I am taking as the law that law which has been expounded by competent judges; the divisional court is manned by highly competent judges. If the judges in the divisional court had come to the conclusion that the individual should be set at liberty because the requirements of the law had been neglected, I should have thought that was an adequate warrant for leaving him at peace. It is somewhat oppressive to face him with the possibility, or likelihood, of a further consideration of the matter by the House of Lords with the result that he might be again taken into custody and sent overseas to face his trial before a foreign tribunal possibly with wholly different customs and procedures which may or may not conduce to the same standard of justice as we think essential in this country before a person can be deprived of his liberty.
Those were the motives which actuated my hon. Friend, and he put them forcibly. I do not think that I can advance the matter by repeating what he said in a way not quite so effectively as he said it. We have endeavoured, in this Amendment, to make a slight advance towards what we think is the right goal. We have again failed, as appears from the remarks of the Solicitor-General, but if the advice I offer is accepted we should like to voice our protest in the Division Lobby against what we think is a wholly unreasonable and obdurate view expressed by the Government spokesmen.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I should have more sympathy for the attitude of the Government in asking for this new privilege if they were prepared


to pay for it. Let us take the example of a foreigner who is here. Any Government, it might be the Italian Government or it might, of course, be an Iron Curtain Government, asks for that man and we are to give them the privilege of ruining him.
He goes to the divisional court and the decision is made by competent judges that that man is entitled to his liberty. It is now to be said in the case of a foreigner that because our judges have made a mistake he is to have the prodigious expense of going to the Court of Appeal and going to the House of Lords charged to him. Is that fair? From the nature of things he is probably not in a position to have much in the way of funds here, yet he has to face the expense. Surely, if the Government wish to ask for this privilege and say that these are important matters which it is important should be settled by the highest tribunal, it is something the Government should pay for.

The Attorney-General: The hon and learned Member is aware, I suppose—I seek to remind him—that if it is the case of a foreigner over here he can get legal aid for all these matters.

Mr. Paget: He can get legal aid, but that is nothing like enough in these circumstances. If the Government wish to proceed in this manner they should pay the expenses of both sides and provide equally adequate services to both sides. Where the Government ask for a special privilege from this House of having a decision because they want to test the matter, they should pay for what they are asking. Surely that is just.

A man who is taken to the House of Lords in those circumstances can be completely ruined, even if he wins. The expenses are prohibitive. I have always felt it unjust that a man who has the misfortune to be wrongly charged cannot recover the expenses to which he has been put in meeting that charge, but to progress from that and extend it right up to the House of Lords surely would be very wrong.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. William Yates(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether Standing Orders were complied with on the occasion of the last Division and whether it lasted the full seven minutes which is allowed to hon. Members. I believe that it lasted for six minutes, but, of course, I was not able to check. Can you please confirm, Mr. Speaker, that the Division was in accordance with Standing Orders and lasted for seven minutes?

Mr. Speaker: I was guided in this instance by the clock on the Table. It may be wrong. I will have a check made of it with a stop-watch. I cannot tell the House more than that. It is a convenient governing factor for the Chair to operate with. I am confirmed in my recollection that I did not misread the little red lights which govern me. I cannot help the House more than that.

Ayes 142, Noes 197.

Division No. 154.]
AYES
[6.26 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Chetwynd, George
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Albu, Austen
Cliffe, Michael
Gourlay, Harry


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Collick, Percy
Greenwood, Anthony


Awbery, Stan
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grey, Charles


Bacon, Miss Alice
Cronin, John
Grimond, J.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Beaney, Alan
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Donnelly, Desmond
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Blackburn, F.
Driberg, Tom
Hannan, William


Blyton, William
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Hayman, F. H.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)


Bowles, Frank
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Houghton, Douglas


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Fitch, Alan
Howell, Charles A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fletcher, Eric
Hoy, James H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Foot, Dingle
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Hunter, A. E.


Callaghan, James
Galpern, Sir Myer
Hynd, H. (Accrington)




Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Padley, W. E.
Stonehouse, John


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Paget, R. T.
Stones, William


Jeger, George
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Pavitt, Laurence
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Peart, Frederick
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pentland, Norman
Sylvester, George


Kelley, Richard
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Popplewell, Ernest
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ledger, Ron
Prentice, R. E.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Logan, David
Probert, Arthur
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Loughlin, Charles
Randall, Harry
Thorpe, Jeremy


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rankin, John
Tomney, Frank


MacColl, James
Reynolds, G. W.
Warbey, William


McInnes, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkins, Tudor


Mackie, John
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Weitzman, David


McLeavy, Frank
Ross, William
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Short, Edward
White, Mrs. Eirene


Manuel, A C.
Skeffington, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Mapp, Charles
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Marsh, Richard
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Mellish, R. J.
Small, William
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mendelson, J. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Millan, Bruce
Snow, Julian
Winterbottom, R. E.


Mitchison, G. R.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Woof, Robert


Moyle, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Oliver, G. H.
Steele, Thomas



Owen, Will
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Redhead and Mr. Lawson




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Doughty, Charles
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Aitken, W. T.
Drayson, G. B.
Leavey, J. A.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Duncan, Sir James
Leburn, Gilmour


Allason, James
Eden, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Arbuthnot, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lilley, F. J. P.


Balniel, Lord
Farr, John
Lindsay, Martin


Barber, Anthony
Fell, Anthony
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Barlow, Sir John
Finlay, Graeme
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Barter, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.


Batsford, Brian
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Freeth, Denzil
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Berkeley, Humphry
Gardner, Edward
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxeth)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
McAdden, Stephen


Biggs-Davison, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
MacArthur, Ian


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
McLaren, Martin


Bishop, F. P.
Gough, Frederick
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Black, Sir Cyril
Gower, Raymond
Maginnis, John E.


Bossom, Clive
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Maitland, Sir John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Green, Alan
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Box, Donald
Gresham Cooke, R.
Marten, Neil


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Gurden, Harold
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Brewis, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Brooman-White, R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mills, Stratton


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bryan, Paul
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bullard, Denys
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Noble, Michael


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Nugent, Sir Richard


Burden, F. A.
Hay, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hendry, Forbes
Page, Graham


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hocking, Philip N.
Peel, John


Chataway, Christopher
Hollingworth, John
Percival, Ian


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Peyton, John


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hopkins, Alan
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cloaver, Leonard
Hornby, R. P.
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Cooke, Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Pitman, I. J.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Cordie, John
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pott, Percivall


Corfield, F. V.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Powell, J. Enoch


Costain, A. P.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Coulson, J. M.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Critchley, Julian
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Prior, J. M. L.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Crowder, F. P.
Jackson, John
Ramsden, James


Curran, Charles
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin,


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rees. Hugh


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Renton. David


de Ferranti, Basil
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kitson, Timothy
Robertson, Sir David







Roots, William
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Talbot, John E.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Russell Ronald
Tapsell, Peter
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Seymour, Leslie
Turner, Colin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Sharples, Richard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Shepherd, William
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Woodnutt, Mark


Simon, Sir Jocelyn
Vane, W. M. F.
Woollam, John


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswlck)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Worsley, Marcus


Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Wall, Patrick



Speir, Rupert
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Watts, James
Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Whitelaw.


Studholme, Sir Henry
Webster, David

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(MODIFICATIONS OF ACT IN RELATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND.)

Amendment made: In page 16, line 33, leave out "for an appeal certificate or".—[The Attorney-General.]

Orders of the Day — Third Schedule.—(CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 19, line 3, at the end to insert:

The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 20 &amp; 21 Vict c. 43.
In section six, after the words "seem fit; and" there shall be inserted the words "except as provided by the Administration of Justice Act, 1960".

Section 6 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857, provides that the decision of the divisional court of the Queen's Bench Division on a case stated by magistrates is to be final. With the introduction of an appeal to the House of Lords under Clause 1 of the Bill, this will no longer be so and the Fourth Schedule accordingly proposes the repeal of the relevant words in Section 6 of the Act of 1857. Following the amendments proposed by the Third Schedule in Section 1 (6) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, it seems more appropriate to provide that the decision of the divisional court should continue to be final except as provided by the present Bill, and this is the effect of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 19, line 24, column 2, at the beginning, to insert:
In section six, in subsection (1), for the words from the beginning to 'subject thereto' there shall be substituted the words 'Except as provided by the Administration of Justice Act, 1960 '
This makes an amendment to Section 6 (1) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act, 1930, corresponding to the amendment to the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, made by the first entry in the Third Schedule.

Amendment agreed to

Orders of the Day — Fourth Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Amendments made: In page 21, leave out lines 5 to 7.

In page 21, line 23, column 3, leave out "Section six" and insert:
In section six, subsection (2)".—[The Attorney-General.]

6.39 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
After the long discussions that we have had on the Bill in Committee and on Report, it is not necessary for me to remind the House in any detail of the contents of this Measure. The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) will, I think, agree with me that the Bill has been subjected by both sides of the House to close and careful consideration. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would also agree with me that, except on one point on which we have differed, the Bill is a desirable reform of our law and should, as the result of our joint efforts, work well.
I am sure that it is right that we should enlarge the right of appeal to the House of Lords in criminal cases and that we should have made the important provision for appeal in cases of contempt of court. I am sure that both those things are good. I commend the Bill to the House as a desirable addition to our criminal law and one which will be of benefit to all those who come within its scope.

6.41 p.m.

Sir F. Soskice: I wish shortly to echo what the Attorney-General has said. Bills of this sort are apt to be technical and not to have a wide appeal to those who have to listen to the technicalities which are discussed. It is, nevertheless, one of those Bills which mark progress along the years in the administration of our law, particularly our criminal law.
The Bill is of very great importance. The provisions in Clauses 1 and 2 with regard to appeal to the House of Lords introduce a change which is generally welcomed. Speaking for my own side, I am glad that the Government resisted attempts to make the right of appeal to the House of Lords in criminal cases equally wide with that which at present exists in civil cases.
The Bill is momentous in its own way. It will, at intervals of years, be followed by similar Bills. We have had some sharp points of disagreement. They were discussed today and earlier. But, on balance, it introduces very great improvements and can be regarded as one of the important reforms in our law. I hope that it will be given a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

PROFESSIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO MEDICINE BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 10.—(POWER TO EXTEND OR RESTRICT APPLICATION OF ACT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 44, at end insert:
and

(b) the number of the representative members of each board exceeds by one the number of the other members of the board; and
(c) the number of the members of the Council required by the First Schedule to this Act to be registered medical practitioners is equal to the number of the representative members of the Council;

and in this subsection representative member' has the same meaning as in that Schedule.

6.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It may be for the convenience of the House also to take the Amendments in page 14, line 25, leave out "persons" and insert "registered medical practitioners"; in line 27, leave out "persons" and insert "registered medical practitioners"; and in line 29, leave out "person" and insert "registered medical practitioner".

Mr. Speaker: Yes, that will be convenient.

Miss Pitt: Those Amendments are consequential on the Amendment in page 11, which would not be fully effective without the three following ones.
As hon. Members who have taken a particular interest in the Bill will know, Clause 10 provides for additions or deletions of the professions supplementary to medicine by order of the Privy Council. The Bill is so worded that such an order would provide for the necessary additions or deletions to the First Schedule. That means that equality would be preserved on the Council between the representatives of the profession and the medical members, and that on the boards the majority of one for the representative members would be maintained.
The Bill therefore provides for what we are now discussing, even without the Amendment; but, because so much


importance has been attached to the preservation of the balance of the interests concerned, because so much work was involved in arriving at an agreed balance, and because of the great importance of the principle, we feel that the Amendment puts the question without any doubt that equality shall be preserved.
The effect of the consequential Amendments in page 14 is to leave out "persons" and insert "registered medical practitioners". It has already been assumed that the English Colleges, the Scottish Corporations and the General Medical Council would appoint registered medical practitioners; but, arising out of the importance of equality and because this point was raised in another place, the Government have tabled an Amendment to establish quite clearly what is intended. We hope that it improves the Bill and that the House will now accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

First Schedule.—(CONSTITUTIONS OF THE COUNCIL AND BOARDS, AND SUPPLE- MENTARY PROVISIONS.)

Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 14, line 25, leave out "persons" and insert "registered medical practitioners";

In line 27, leave out "persons" and insert "registered medical practitioners";

In line 29, leave out "person" and insert "registered medical practitioner".

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 8, at end insert:
. Before the English Colleges or the Scottish Corporations nominate a person for appointment as a member of a board in pursuance of paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 4 above, they shall consult such body or bodies (if any) as they consider appropriate in relation to that nomination, being a body or bodies appearing to them to represent medical practitioners specialising in a field with which the board will be concerned.

Miss Pitt: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment is designed to ensure that, before nominating any person for membership of a board, the English Colleges and the Scottish Corporations shall consult such specialised medical bodies as they consider appropriate. The

Bill provides that the great majority of medical members of boards shall be nominated by the English Royal Colleges and the Scottish Corporations. It is based upon a scheme negotiated with the representatives of the supplementary professions and the Joint Consultants Committee, but the Bill says nothing about the procedure for nominating.
Because some anxiety has been expressed, notably by the radiographers—hon. Members will be aware of this, because I have received a number of letters from them on behalf of constituents—it has been decided that "medical practitioners" might not be fully representative. We hope that the Amendment will relieve any doubt.
It has been made of general application. It will cover all the professions, not just radiographers, because there will be other consultants with special interest in the work of particular boards. It was always considered that the English Colleges and the Scottish Corporations, with their great prestige and wide views, were the right bodies for nominating, but it is clearly desirable that they should consult the specialist bodies.
We have always assumed that they will do so, and the Government are sure that that view is correct, but we are conscious of the importance of making sure that specialist opinion is not overlooked in making the nominations. The, Amendment therefore ensures this object. It preserves the principle that the ultimate responsibility rests with the English Colleges and the Scottish Corporations, but it provides for consultation, and, therefore, secures both objects. I hope that the House will accept it.

Dr. Barnett Stross: The Parliamentary Secretary used the word "radiographers" in association with consultant status. I assume that she meant "radiologists". Am I right in assuming that those who will be appointed by the Colleges will be medical practitioners, namely, radiologists? They will not be radiographers.

Miss Pitt: Miss Pitt indicated assent.

Dr. Stross: I understand the difficulties of the medical profession and its members' desire that they should have their representation fully safeguarded. I do not propose to go into a debate on this, because we have debated it very fully. The hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend


pointed out that we were dealing with ethics and education rather than with any therapeutic aspect of medicine and that there was no need for the medical profession to have any fears on this issue.
Both sides of the House felt very strongly about this, and the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) made clear his opinion that any disturbance of the way in which these groups are listed in this Bill would be catastrophic. I assume that all we are doing is underwriting what we originally put in the Bill. If that is all, I am content, and would only say that I am sorry that anyone should have felt it necessary that Amendments should have been brought forward. They are not really necessary.
I think that everyone here who is interested in the Bill and in the profession knows quite well that the spirit of the Bill would never have been breached. Nevertheless, here it is, and, if it is a form of words that is needed, I would not disagree.

Question put and agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(THE INVESTIGATING AND DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEES).

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 4, leave out "the committee may administer oaths" and insert:
in England or Wales or Northern Ireland the committee may administer oaths and any party to the proceedings may sue out writs of subpoena and testificandum and duces tecum, but no person shall be compelled under any such writ to produce any document which he could not be compelled to produce on the trial of an action.
(2) The provisions of section forty-nine of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, or of the Attendance of Witnesses Act, 1854 (which provide special procedures for the issue of such writs so as to he in force throughout the United Kingdom) shall apply in relation to any proceedings before a disciplinary committee in England or Wales or, as the case may be, in Northern Ireland as those provisions apply in relation to causes or matters in the High Court or actions or suits pending in the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland.
(3) For the purpose of any proceedings before a disciplinary committee in Scotland, the committee may administer oaths and the Court of Session shall on the application of my party to the proceedings have the like power as in any action in that court to grant warrant for the citation of witnesses and havers to give evidence or to produce documents before the committee, and for the issue of letters of second diligence against any witness or haver failing to appear after due citation,

to grant warrant for the recovery of documents, and to grant commissions to persons to take the evidence of witnesses or to examine havers and receive their exhibits and productions.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I must point out that there is a misprint in this Amendment. In the fourth line, the English conjunction "and", where it first occurs, should be the Latin preposition "ad".
This House has decided to entrust to the disciplinary committees of the professional boards which the Bill will establish very important disciplinary powers over the persons registered by them. They are powers which may have a far-reaching effect on the livelihood of those to whom they are applied; and as serious as many proceedings before courts. I do not think that any hon. Member would disagree that these bodies should have, and should be seen to have, the power as far as may be to establish the truth. The question therefore arose at an earlier stage in the proceedings upon this Bill whether these bodies should have the power to subpoena witnesses and to secure the production of documents.
The question of the appropriate power of subpoena was considered by the Simonds Committee, which reported
earlier this year and, again, I would feel that the whole House would agree with the conclusion on this matter at which that Committee arrived. Perhaps I might just quote one sentence from that conclusion. In paragraph 40 of its Report the Committee said
… that justice can only be done if material evidence is not withheld, that this is true of all Courts and tribunals to which the administration of justice is entrusted, that it applies with particular force to tribunals having power to impose such formidable penalties as have the disciplinary tribunals of professional bodies …
It is in accordance with that intention and with the recommendations of the Simonds Committee that this Amendment was made in another place.
The first part of the Amendment gives to parties appearing before a disciplinary committee the right to sue out writs of subpoena and rights to secure the production of documents. It gives exactly the same power as the parties would have in a court. The second paragraph


applies to that power the machinery for making such writs applicable in Scotland as is available under the two Acts quoted in the second paragraph. Finally, the third paragraph of the Amendment makes the corresponding provision under Scottish law for disciplinary committees sitting in the Northern Kingdom.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: First of all, may I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on attaining his new office. I must say that this is the sixth occasion since 1951 on which I have congratulated successive Ministers of Health, and I only hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to fulfil some of the promises—I only say some of the promises—that I observed he made on the day he was appointed. I am quite sure that he will find this field interesting and humane, and there are various aspects of it in which I think we could well do with certain parts of his brain.
We are prepared to accept all the Amendments. I have not intervened before this, but I am very glad that the Minister has thought fit to make the statement that he has made. There are only two matters of controversy—and I shall not raise the other, as it would not be relevant here. This Bill, like many in the sphere of health, has been accepted by both sides of the House and, in Committee, both sides endeavoured to improve it. On this matter, however, the lawyers felt rather strongly, and in July one of my hon. Friends had intended to speak rather strongly on the matter. After further consideration he has decided to accept the Lords Amendment as it now stands and, in view of the Minister's explanation, we are prepared to accept it. I think that, on the whole, the approach of the Simonds Committee was the correct one.

Lord Balniel: I, too, would like, on behalf at least of the back benchers on this side of the Chamber, to welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister to his new post; to welcome him wholeheartedly, and to say that we are very glad indeed, in contrast to the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), to have all parts of his brain. The abilities which he has brought to bear on the various offices he has held are very highly

respected in this House. We are particularly glad to have his ability in a Ministry which is so directly concerned with the ill-health and misery which exists even in this very vulgarly called "affluent society" today. There is a great deal he can do in this service.
This Amendment comes from another place and, as my right hon. Friend has said, is being inserted following on the recommendations of the Simonds Report. I most certainly accept the general intention of the Simonds Committee; namely, that when this House gives to any professional body disciplinary powers, then, as a corollary, that professional body must be given power to subpoena as well.
The argument in favour of the Amendment seems to be set out with complete lucidity in paragraph 11 of the Report, which states:
We emphasise that where Parliament has confided to a professional body a disciplinary jurisdiction which enables it to penalise a member by depriving him of the power to earn a living in his chosen profession and perhaps gravely injuring him in his reputation, it is essential that in proceedings before such a tribunal prosecutor and accused alike should have power to enforce the attendance of witnesses.
My right hon. Friend, accepting this recommendation, has reinserted into the Bill the words withdrawn from it, without debate, during the Committee stage. I must confess, however, that whilst I accept the general contention of the Simonds Committee, I still have certain misgivings about this Amendment. Whilst my right hon. Friend has reinserted the powers into the Bill, he has not altered the Bill one jot or tittle to meet the conditions that I believe are implicit in any reading of the Simonds Report. Perhaps I might be permitted to quote once again from paragraph 41, which states:
The true safeguard is that each tribunal should be fitted and equipped"—
fitted and equipped:
to deal with matters of evidence in accordance with established legal principles. It is not within the scope of our reference to say to which professional bodies jurisdiction should be given and from which withheld. But it is obvious that caution should be exercised in giving it.
It was not within the terms of reference of the Simonds Committee to decide which tribunals are equipped to deal with legal matters, but most certainly it is


within the terms of reference of this House, and indeed it is a duty and an obligation of this House, to consider this matter in particular because in this brief Amendment we are establishing seven and possibly twelve new tribunals, giving them what The Times describes as "heavy judicial sanctions", what the Committee itself describes as
the power to impose such formidable penalties,
and what Lord Simonds in another place described as "most formidable penal powers."
7.0 p.m.
Because of the speedy introduction of this Bill, this matter was hardly discussed, and few of us had time to read it before the Second Reading. With one stroke of the pen on a matter which was not discussed at all during the Committee stage of the Bill, we are doubling the numbers of tribunals in this country which have express statutory power to obtain the issue of writs of subpoena. We are doubling their numbers if we pass this Amendment. This is surely a very major step affecting not only the profession but every citizen in the country. It affects any hon. Member, and it is obviously of particular importance to those who might be patients to these professions.
Are we certain that these tribunals, these courts, are qualified to exercise heavy judicial sanctions? Are they really fitted and equipped to deal with matters of evidence in accordance with established legal principles? Are we really exercising the caution which was a keynote of the Simonds Committee Report, and which the Simonds Committee recommended? Many of us would be more certain in our own minds if we could look to the precedents, especially the precedents from my right hon. Friend's Department, and demonstrate that caution has always been the keynote of legislation.
I do not know whether hon. Members saw in a newspaper this week a report of a disciplinary committee—a rather different kind of disciplinary committee and far less influential than the committees which we are discussing today. It did not have the power of subpoena. I refer to the Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board, which this week imposed a fine of £40 on a British citizen

for failing to fill in some forms. When we read this kind of thing, does a glow of pride at British justice suffuse our hearts or do we have a feeling bordering on contempt at a system which bestows greater and greater judicial powers on courts outside the judiciary? I must make it absolutely clear that I do not in any way criticise the members of these courts, abut I sincerely criticise the lightheartedness with which we seem to be able to pass legislation on these important matters.
Perhaps I might return more directly to the existing disciplinary professional courts. I have no doubt that these existing disciplinary professional courts are of great benefit both to the professions and to the community at large. I have no doubt that they are of great benefit and that they are conducted with the utmost propriety by those who serve on these boards, but I cannot say that caution has been the keynote in setting up these courts.
Hon. Members will see at the back of the Simonds Committee's Report a list of the disciplinary bodies having express statutory power to obtain the issue of writs of subpoena. They are very few in number. They are being doubled tonight. But let us examine for a moment one or two of these courts. Let us examine in particular these courts which lie within the province of my right hon. Friend's Department. If one takes the Midwives Act—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to remind the noble Lord that the debate is restricted to this Amendment in page 23, line 4.

Lord Balniel: With the greatest respect, may I put this point to you, Sir? This matter, which I think is generally agreed to be of the greatest importance to the Bill, was not enabled by this House to be discussed during the Committee stage. This is the first occasion on which this House has had the opportunity of discussing what, after all, is perhaps the most controversial element in the Bill. If I might submit one further point—

Mr. Speaker: That does not help me. I am obliged under our rules to confine the debate to the Lords Amendment on the Paper.

Lord Balniel: May I put this further point to you, Sir? In the Second Reading the Minister particularly pointed out that these courts to which we are granting disciplinary powers are based exactly upon the precedents of the courts which existed before. Surely, if we are granting disciplinary powers, it is open to us in this House to discuss whether these courts are worthy and capable of bearing the powers which we are trying to give them in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, the courts with which the Amendment is concerned, but not the other ones.

Lord Balniel: I accept your Ruling, Sir, but I think that if anyone does study these other courts, on which I will not attempt to elaborate now, any hon. Member would have grave doubts whether these courts which we are establishing are fit and worthy receptacles of these powers of subpoena which we are now giving. They are not the same in every respect as some of these other courts where there is no statutory obligation to have a legal chairman; where there is no statutory obligation to have a legal assessor, nor to have any member of these courts qualified in law. These courts which my right hon. Friend is setting up, it is true, are to have the benefit of a legal assessor, but surely in this House we must admit that a court consisting of a few remedial gymnasts or a few chiropodists or dieticians, with no legal experience apart from what it receives in the form of advice from its assessor, is a very weak body to wield these substantial judicial powers.
Perhaps I might refer to some words of Lord Silkin, himself a past-president of one of the bodies of chiropodists. To paraphrase his words, he said that they are going to be men of little or no experience. Yet we are proposing to give them powers of subpoena which can be extended to every citizen in this country.
I regret that my right hon. Friend, instead of establishing seven and possibly twelve new disciplinary courts which are really rather ill-qualified courts to bear these powers, is not creating one disciplinary court covering all the professions under the Council.
I am not anxious to delay this Bill. It has been delayed for too long already. But I do say that I regret that my right

hon. Friend has not taken the opportunity of improving it. Perhaps one might express the hope that he will take this opportunity of indicating that he will review these other courts, at least to bring them up to the minimum standards demanded by the Simonds Committee.

Dr. Stross: It is true, and I think that the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) is right, that in Standing Committee we considered this matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) made it clear that, in his view, as we were waiting for the Simonds Committee to report, perhaps it would be wiser if we were to leave the major debate on the matter to a later stage. We thought at that time that we might have an opportunity of speaking a little more fully on this occasion, as we felt we could not at that time.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras, North): We hoped that we would get the opportunity of discussing it on Report, but, unfortunately, the Simonds Committee did not report in time.

Dr. Stross: I remember that my hon. Friend raised the issue in Committee with these words
I think that probably it would be better if we have the major debate later … but at this stage I thought it useful to remind the Committee that the complete removal of the powers of subpoena from disciplinary committees will hamper their effectiveness very considerably
He went on to agree with the noble Lord by saying:
On the other hand, we are the guardians of the civil liberties and rights of the individuals, and there is undoubtedly a conflict of interest here."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Standing Committee B, 2nd February, 1960; c. 72.]
I am sure that there is, but I do not find myself by any means agreeing with the noble Lord, and I will give my reasons briefly.
I hope the Minister will not feel embarrassed if I support him, and I should like at the same time to congratulate him on his high office and to wish him well. It is true that we have had from the noble Lord what we rightfully expect from him—a speech in defence of liberty on behalf of the citizen and subject as against the Executive, and he expressed his fears very vividly. Are lawyers the only people to understand


evidence? I wonder. If it be true that they understand it better because they are more accustomed to listening to it and to sifting it than are lay people, is it not also true that lay people, listening to cases only of this type and no other kind of case will often have an advantage over the lawyer, because they know all the antecedent circumstances in cases of this kind, the environment of the individual, and can put themselves in that individual's place very easily. That I think is a true safeguard, and if there are legal assessors also to assist them I think that the noble Lord's fears are exaggerated.
I thought the Minister was right when he said that whatever we do we must get at the truth of a matter, and that therefore these powers are essential. I should be sorry to think that they were likely to be abused. The medical men—and I say this with some hesitation, having had some experience in medicine myself—are trained all through their lifetime to look dispassionately and to listen dispassionately to what is said to them and to do their best to sift the truth from the false, the real from the unreal. [Interruption.] Would my right hon. Friend like to intervene to disagree?

Mr. F. Blackburn: We were wondering which doctors are these.

Mr. Ede: I have no wish to intervene, but I was staggered by the compliment which my hon. Friend was paying to his own profession, for I have never known more dogmatic people than doctors.

Dr. Stross: The truth, when it is once sincerely felt, is often a portion of dogma, and my right hon. Friend, who has expounded at the Box so often during the night, and very often in the early morning, has been as dogmatic as most people.
To end what I was saying, these medical men are essentially trained to sift the real from the unreal, and I think that altogether, with those they represent on these boards, they are as likely to achieve truth and justice as any other body of people.

7.15 p.m.

Sir Hugh Linstead: I should like to add my welcome and congratula-

tions to my right hon. Friend and to say how glad I am to see his great qualities applied in this new and important office to which he has just come.
I appreciate very deeply the sincere speech which we have just heard from my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), and the reasons which impelled him to make it, but I am bound to say that I think on this occasion that the balance of advantage rests quite clearly in favour of the Bill as it is proposed, together with the Amendment which we are now discussing.
I would quarrel with my noble Friend when he suggests that what we are doing here is to double the number of tribunals to have these powers of subpoena. While it is true that only a limited number of similar tribunals in the past have had specific statutory power to do it, in fact any tribunal created under an Act of Parliament has always had the right, independent of the Statute, to go to the High Court and request the support of the High Court to secure the attendance of witnesses. Therefore, I think that we are in no way doubling the number of tribunals with this statutory power. All that we are doing is putting into a Statute the power which would have resided in these tribunals themselves even if it had not been in the Statute.
I would go a stage further and say that the real substance of this Amendment—and perhaps my noble Friend did not quite appreciate it—resides in the fact that we are encouraging these groups of men to become professionals in every sense of the word. If we do not want to see them develop in every sense into professionals, we ought not to legislate in this way for them. If we are hoping to establish them firmly as professional bodies, we must inevitably give them one of the hallmarks of professionalism, which is the right to determine their own standards of conduct and to discipline their own black sheep.
I should have thought that, even though there may be weaknesses in the early days of these tribunals, once these professions have settled down and crystallised themselves and have taken advantage of the opportunities which this Bill will give them, we shall find that, as in other professions, these tribunals will act in a satisfactory way.


If we have any doubt about it, we have to remember, as has been quite properly pointed out, that they will have their judicial assessors to help them, and, ultimately, if they do put a foot wrong by any chance, there is a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
This all turns on the question of how we hope that these groups of men and women will develop, and as the whole essence of this Bill is that they should develop the full panoply of professionalism I very hope that on reflection my noble Friend will see that perhaps some of his doubts will be resolved in practice.

Mr. Powell: If I may have the permission of the House to say another word or two, I should like to thank hon. Members and the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) for what they have been good enough to say about me personally.
My noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) was right in drawing the attention of the House to the important words of the Simonds Committee's Report about the caution required in giving jurisdiction to bodies of this kind. Of course, what we are doing in this Amendment is starting from the point where we have all decided that these are fit bodies to have these disciplinary powers, and are going to give them the full means which they require to exercise them fitly.
He also referred to the fact that not all the existing disciplinary bodies have in every case the full range of the attributes which the Simonds Committee suggested they should have. It would be the intention of the Government as and when opportunity arises in the course of legislation to make good those deficiencies.

Question put and agreed to

NOISE ABATEMENT BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2.—(RESTRICTION OF OPERATION ON HIGHWAYS, &C., OF LOUDSPEAKERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 42, after "loudspeaker" insert:
between the hours of noon and seven o'clock in the evening on the same day".

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Rupert Speir: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I tell the House quite frankly that this is a compromise Amendment. I hope that hon. Members will think it is a reasonable, sensible and workable compromise. By and large, the Bill has had a fairly easy passage through all its stages both in this House and in another place. The great exception has been the issue of what are known as ice cream chimes. The fact that the Bill has hitherto had such an easy passage has demonstrated that its general aim is universally welcomed and acceptable. Most people agree that the time has come when we ought to take steps here in Parliament to try to discourage and control unnecessary noise or, as the Bill puts it, to abate noise.
The chief danger I have had to guard against in piloting the Bill thus far has come from the ever-enthusiasm of the extremists, of people who would, in my judgment, go too far in infringing the liberty of the subject and would clamp down on every possible noise. For my part, I am a "middle of the road" man on the subject of noise. Many noises I like. I am certain that most people would not enjoy living the cloistered life of the silent cell. That would drive many people mad, and do it far more quickly than living in our noisy world.
On the other hand, I join issue with Dr. Donald Broadbent, of Cambridge University, who was reported recently as saying, when addressing the British Association, that loud noises did not do anyone any physical harm. I gather that Dr. Broadbent based his belief on experiments he had carried out on some rats. He found that rats bred just as freely in the presence of loud noises as they did in the quiet of their sewers.


I scarcely regard that as a conclusive experiment.
Ice cream, although it is not specifically mentioned at all in the Bill, came very near to wrecking the whole Bill. Perhaps it is not altogether surprising that ice cream should have played such a prominent part, since it is now a very popular item of food. Its popularity is growing every day. The Daily Express told us recently that, if one collected and piled up all the ice cream which had been consumed in Britain last year, one would be able to make a solid full-scale model of the whole of the Palace of Westminster. That demonstrates quite clearly how popular ice cream has become as a food which people enjoy. It is something of general interest to the public, particularly in its method of sale, which now to a great extent, if not to the greatest extent, is done from mobile shops and vans. It is the chimes used by the mobile shops and by the salesmen in their vans which has caused so much discussion.
The amplified chimes of ice cream vendors were referred to constantly in Committee and on Report in the House, and I undertook to have the matter examined and reconsidered when it went to another place. This Amendment is a direct result of further examination and discussion with all interested parties. As I have frankly said, it is a compromise, but a compromise which I regard as sensible and reasonable. If it is accepted, it will mean that amplified ice cream chimes and other amplified chimes will not be sounded before noon or after seven in the evening. This limitation will have the merit of giving protection to the shift worker, who will not be disturbed by amplified chimes in the morning hours, and it will have the benefit also of giving parents of young children protection so that their children are not kept awake or woken up by the chimes after they have gone to bed.
I understand that the Amendment is acceptable to the local authority associations and, albeit unwillingly, to the ice cream trade. I hope, therefore, that it will commend itself to the House.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I confess that, where noise is concerned, as with other things, I am an extremist. I believe that undue noise is one of the

really damaging features of our social life. I do not believe that we should disregard complaints about noise and the unhappiness and misery which it causes people in all walks of life as just extremist complaints. I myself suffer very badly from noise. I am a light sleeper, and I find that the things which keep me awake at night are unnecessary noises. I should like to introduce a Bill to abolish dogs that bark. It would be a great step towards achieving a civilised social life in this country.
I have done my best to try to persuade the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) to see the error of his ways in, as it were, falling for the propaganda of the ice cream merchants.

Mr. Speir: Mr. Speir indicated dissent.

Sir L. Plummer: The hon. Gentleman should not shake his head. This Amendment, useful as it is, represents an almost complete denial of what was originally proposed. We were to have ice cream chimes between eight o'clock in the morning and nine o'clock at night, thirteen hours a day. This was amended then to ten hours a day. Now, at the last moment, it has been amended to seven hours a day. But we were told that the whole ice cream trade would disappear if the vendors were not allowed to have their vans running through the streets making as much noise as they could modulate for as long as they liked.
Are we to assume that, as a result of this Amendment, which I hope will be accepted, the ice cream trade will collapse? After listening to the propaganda of the ice cream merchants, I Should have assumed that that is what would happen. Of course, we know that it will not. The Bill would have had a much easier passage if we had not had so much propaganda given to us at the time when it was going through. At one time, we were told that we need not worry about the noise because the chimes had been composed by a famous composer—as if that was any consolation to a shift worker woken up by them. Then we were told that, in any case, the salesmen could not increase the power of the amplification. Yet a few months ago one salesman was fined for multiplying the amplification and increasing the noise.
The fact is that we were asked, on behalf of the vested interests, to give to a particular section of the food trade powers that were to be denied to others. Now, the revising Chamber has done what it is supposed to do and has brought some sanity into the matter. For my part, I should prefer the chimes to be banned altogether.
I was very much moved in that view by a letter which appeared in The Guardian of 19th July this year from a man who described how his small son ran out as he heard the ice-cream man coming down the street playing his tunes, with the result that he ran under a vehicle and was killed. This man asked that that kind of temptation to children to forget their lessons in road safety should be prohibited.
Although one is moved by that, I should not advance it as the main argument. What I have done in the past has been to try to limit the amount of noise that these people may make. However, seven hours is better than ten hours, and it is nearly twice as good as 13 hours. We have done something, and the other place has done something, in looking after the interests of the shift workers.
7.30 p.m.
I would make this final appeal to the people who will benefit by this—the ice cream people themselves. I wish that they would give instructions to their drivers to be careful about playing their tunes near busy crossings. I would ask them to be careful to make certain that when they play them outside schools they do so on the part of the road adjacent to the schools so that children do not have to cross the road to get to the ice cream vans. I appeal to them to put the safety of children first before the size of their sales. Also, I would draw the attention of local authorities to the powers remaining in the Bill to deal quite harshly with any salesman, whether he is the representative of a large combine or a small man, who tries to infringe the restrictions on noise contained in the Bill.
I welcome the Amendment. It improves the Bill. It does not do so completely, because the only way to have done that would have been to exclude the sound altogether, but I am prepared

to go along with the hon. Member for Hexham and to accept the Amendment.

Mr. James MacColl: The House took a risk in a flurry and fuss, and under considerable pressure, just before the Summer Recess, when we agreed to the Bill going to the other place in a form which I think many of my hon. Friends thought profoundly unsatisfactory. If this Lords Amendment had not come to the House, the longer exemption would have been in the Bill, and I think that it is to the credit of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) that he has very honourably and conscientiously done his best to redeem the undertaking which he gave to use his great influence over the other place—which appears to be extensive—to produce something which would be a considerable improvement.
It is, I suppose, to the benefit of the shift worker rather than the child, because the child who goes to bed at 6 o'clock will still suffer from the disturbance whereas the shift worker will not suffer as he would have done before. I do not quarrel with that. I think that it is not unreasonable that the shift worker should be considered, but I join my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) in saying that I hope that the result of the debates that we have had will be to bring it home to the trade how strong public opinion is, in this House and in the other place and, I am sure, outside, about the nuisance caused by noise, and that it will not feel that it has got away with something which gives it freedom to make as much noise as it likes between 12 o'clock and 7 o'clock. I am certain that the feeling in the House is such that if that were to happen the result would be a further attempt to amend the law in a more drastic way.
I found not long ago that in my constituency we have noises not only from the bells, but also from a loud refrigerator motor which is even more disturbing than the bells. I think that that would be covered by the earlier part of the Bill dealing with mechanical vibration. I hope that it will be possible to deal with that kind of trouble and nuisance as well.
I think that there can be no question that we must accept the Amendment,


because it makes the Bill very much better than it was when we left it. I would, therefore, advise my hon. Friend to accept the Amendment, and I should like again to give the hon. Member for Hexham credit for having done his best to try to meet the very strong feeling on this matter on both sides of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3.—(CONSEQUENTIAL REPEAL, &c., OF LOCAL ENACTMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 33, at end insert:
Provided that in the case of a provision of a local Act which appears to the Minister to be unnecessary having regard to the provisions of the last foregoing section, the power of repeal conferred by this subsection shall not be exercised without the consent of the local authorities for the area to which the proposed repeal extends.

Mr. Speir: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The object of the Amendment is to safeguard the position of a very limited number of local authorities which have already done what the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) would like many other local authorities to do, and that is to ban altogether the amplified chimes of ice cream merchants and others. As the Bill was originally drafted, under Clause 3 the Minister could exercise his power of repeal in spite of the views of and against the wishes of those local authorities. The Amendment will enable the powers in Clause 3 to be exercised by the Minister only with the agreement of the local authorities for the area to which the proposed repeal extends.

Mr. MacColl: When we were discussing the Bill in the House earlier, we dealt with the other side of this, which is the byelaw-making provisions in the public Act. I hope that we have safeguarded that and the noisy hawking byelaw and similar things. I gather that his Amendment deals with the analogous case of the private Act which might be subject to repeal. Therefore, as it is fully in principle with what we said in our previous discussion in the House, I think that we should accept the Amendment with thankfulness.

Question put and agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING OF MOTOR CYCLES) BILL

Lords Amendment considered.

Clause 1.—(AMENDMENT OF SS. (2) OF S. 97 OF ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1960.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 9, leave out from "words" to the end of line 10 and insert:
'such minimum age, not being less than sixteen years, as may be so prescribed' there were substituted the words 'such minimum age as may be so prescribed, not being less than—

(a) sixteen years, in the case of motor cycles other than those of the class or description specified in the following paragraph;
(b) fifteen years, in the case of motor cycles whereof the cylinder capacity of the engine does not exceed fifty cubic centimetres, being cycles equipped with pedals by means whereof they are capable of being propelled'"

7.37 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The House will recall that when the Bill was first introduced it opened with a Clause which sought to define and to classify the various kinds of motor cycle affected by its subsequent provisions. At the request of the Government, however, this Clause was dropped in Committee because we were told that the Minister had power to achieve precisely the same object by regulation and that that was the manner in which affairs had been conducted in the past.
The Committee accepted the Government's view in the main, but with one important exception. I think that the Committee was unanimous in its opposition to leaving it to the Government to decide which categories of motor cycle could benefit from the power given in Clause 1 to lower the age of the rider to 15. We all felt that this power must apply only to what are popularly called mopeds, motorised bicycles more akin to a pedal cycle than a motor cycle.
After a prolonged discussion in Committee, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary undertook to seek a suitable legal definition of this class of motor cycle or motorised bicycle and to write it in to Clause 1 as it now is at a later stage. It was on this understanding that the Committee accepted


the Clause, and it was on this understanding that, two days later, the House gave the Bill an unopposed Third Reading.
The Lords Amendment to which I am asking the House to agree fulfils the undertaking then given. It limits the power to lower the riding age to 15 to the category of machine popularly called the moped. I daresay that some hon. Members may think that the definition in the Amendment is somewhat cumbrous and long-winded. In that case, I can only refer them to hon. Members who are "learned" as well as "honourable". For myself, I am satisfied that the Amendment will achieve the purpose and intention behind the Bill when it received its Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

PUBLIC BODIES (ADMISSION TO MEETINGS) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(ADMISSION OF PUBLIC TO MEETINGS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER BODIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 14, at end insert:
(8) The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to any power of exclusion to suppress or prevent disorderly conduct or other misbehaviour at a meeting.

7.40 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to relieve some of the apprehensions expressed by local authorities that, as the Bill secures the right of the public to attend local authority meetings, it may deprive local authorities of the right to exclude members of the public who behave in a disorderly manner or in any way obstruct the meetings.
It was the opinion of such of the legal Members as I consulted that the Bill did not deprive the local authorities of any common law powers which they might have had in that direction. As, however, those authorities were still apprehensive, their Lordships thought it best to include the Amendment in the Bill. I hope that this House will think fit to pass it, because it makes it clear that the common law powers still remain, either with the chairman or with the authority.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I have particular pleasure in supporting the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) in what she has just said, because in Committee on the Bill I had an Amendment down of similar effect though rather different words. I had the misfortune that the Amendment was not even called by the Chairman of the Committee, and when I managed to raise the matter later in discussion of the Schedule to the Bill I was told, in effect, by the Government that what I had in mind was neither necessary nor, perhaps, possible. I am, therefore, delighted to find that their Lordships have found it possible


and have considered it necessary, and I trust that this House will agree to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2.—(APPLICATION OF ACT, AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 36, leave out from "instrument" to "House" in line 37 and insert:
but a statutory instrument made by a Minister under this section shall be of no effect unless it is approved by resolution of each".

Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is designed to secure that orders which add bodies to the Schedule shall be subject to the affirmative instead of the negative Resolution procedure. This will be a substantial advantage to any body whose proceedings it is proposed to bring within the ambit of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule.—(BODIES TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 14.

Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I trust that it will be in order, Mr. Speaker, if I refer at the same time to the Amendments in page 5, line 33, at end insert "(other than police authorities)", and in line 36, at end insert "(other than joint police committees constituted under the Police (Scotland) Act, 1956)". All three of the group of Amendments are designed to secure that neither the public nor the Press is admitted to the proceedings of any bodies which are acting as police authorities. I believe this to be in accordance with the consensus of opinion expressed in this House on Report and Third Reading, although the Amendments then before the House were not adequate to give effect to the views then expressed.
The first of these three Amendments cuts out from the Bill police authorities in England and Wales. The second Amendment is necessary because those authorities, having been cut out, might

then be inadvertently brought in on the ground that they have power to levy a rate. The third Amendment excludes police authorities in Scotland from the ambit of the Bill. The total effect, therefore, of the three Amendments together is to exclude all police authorities from the operation of the Bill.

Mr. Ede: I support the proposition made by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). It may be recalled that, on Report, we had great difficulty in dealing with this matter because a Member who had undertaken to move an Amendment did not do so when he first had the chance. Many local authorities would, I think, have been compelled to oppose the Bill had the Bill as it left this House not been amended in another place.
7.45 p.m.
While I generally approve of the admission of the Press to meetings of local authorities—in fact, I introduced a Bill myself in 1930 to do that—I never contemplated that police matters were suitable subjects for public discussion. I imagine that the Home Secretary, whom I see favouring us temporarily with his presence, would have been considerably embarrassed had this Amendment not been introduced.

Mr. M. Stewart: The hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said that the effect of the Amendment would be to exclude the Press and public from meetings of police authorities. I think I am right in saying that that is not quite correct. It would still be open for a police authority to let the Press and public in if it wished. What the Amendment does is to avoid putting that authority under any obligation.

Mrs. Thatcher: Mrs. Thatcher indicated assent.

Mr. Stewart: As such, for the reasons mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I consider it a worthy Amendment. It is a little ironical that some of the agitation which led to the Bill began with criticisms of the watch committee of a certain authority and some harsh things were said about it. It is entertaining to notice that the Bill ends with their Lordships ensuring that watch committees


and other police authorities shall be outside the purview of the Bill. That seems to me on the whole to be a happy as well as an ironical result, and I trust that the House will agree to the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 5, line 33, at end insert "(other than police authorities)".

In line 36, at end insert:
(other than joint police committees constituted under the Police (Scotland) Act, 1956)

STANDING ORDERS

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Amendments to the Standing Orders of this House relating to Private Business and new Standing Orders, hereinafter stated in the Schedule, be made; and that Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking private business) be repealed.

SCHEDULE

Standing Order No. 1

Line 9, leave out "except as hereinafter provided".

Line 11, after "consideration", insert "except business exempted under Standing Order No. 1A (Exemptions from Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House))".

Line 39, leave out from "business" to "shall" in line 41.

Line 41, at end add, "except proceedings exempted under Standing Order No. 1A (Exemptions from Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House))".

Line 42, leave out from the beginning to end of line 134.

Insert new Standing Order No. 1A (Exemptions from Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)).

(1) The following business shall be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed, shall not, save as provided in paragraph (2) of this order, be interrupted at ten of the clock, and if under discussion when the business is postponed under the provisions of any standing order may be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of business:—

(a) proceedings on a bill originating in Committee of Ways and Means;
(b) proceedings on the reports of the Committee of Ways and Means;
(c) proceedings on the report of a committee authorising the expenditure of public money except a report from the Committee of Supply;
(d) proceedings in pursuance of any Act of Parliament save in so far as Standing Order No. 95A (Statutory Instruments, etc. (procedure)) otherwise provides or in pursuance of any Standing Order of this House;
(e) proceedings of a committee on a motion authorising expenditure in connection with a bill: Provided that any questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings of such a committee shall be put at a quarter to eleven of the clock or at the expiration of three quarters of an hour after the House shall have resolved itself into that committee whichever is the later.

(2) If a notice of motion in the name of a Minister of the Crown stands upon the order paper at the commencement of public business to the effect either:—

(a) that the proceedings on any specified business be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House); or


(b) that the proceedings on any specified business be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for a specified period after ten of the clock;

it shall stand over and may not be moved until after the interruption of business and shall then be proceeded with in accordance with the following paragraphs of this order.

(3) If the business interrupted is included in the business specified in the motion or is exempted under paragraph (1) of this order, Mr. Speaker shall, immediately after the interruption of business, or, if the House has been in Committee, before any day is named for the House again to resolve itself into that Committee, call upon the Minister to move his motion and the question thereon shall be put forthwith without amendment or debate and after that question has been decided, the consideration of the business interrupted shall be resumed if such business is exempted under paragraph (1) of this order or if the question be resolved in the affirmative.

(4) If the business interrupted is not included in the business specified in the motion or is not exempted under paragraph (1) of this order, Mr. Speaker shall call upon the Minister to move his motion at the conclusion of any proceedings arising on the interruption of business under the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) but before any proceedings postponed under Standing Orders No. 7 (Time for taking private business) or No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance).

(5) It a motion made under either of the two preceding paragraphs be agreed to, the business so specified shall be proceeded with as if exempted under paragraph (1) of this order, save that business exempted for a specified time after ten of the clock may not it opposed be entered upon or resumed after the expiration of that time and the proceedings thereon if not previously concluded shall be interrupted at the end of that period.

(6) Not more than one motion under paragraph (2) of this order may be made at any one sitting and after any business exempted under this order is disposed of after ten of the clock, the remaining business of the sitting shall be dealt with according to the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) applicable to business taken after ten of the clock.

Standing Order No. 2

Line 5, leave out "Order" and insert "Orders".

Line 6, after "House)", insert "and No. 1A (Exemptions from Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House))".

Line 8, leave out "thereof" and insert "of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)".

Insert new Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking private business)

(1) On Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays the time for private business shall end not later than a quarter to three of the clock and business entered upon and not

disposed of at that hour shall be deferred to such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means may appoint. Business not reached shall stand over to the next sitting, or in the case of business which has been opposed until the next sitting other than a Friday.

(2) During the time of private business, opposed business shall not be proceeded with but shall be deferred to such time, other than a Friday, as the Chairman of Ways and Means may appoint. Opposed business shall include any proceedings on a private bill or a confirming bill which have been so deferred, so long as a notice of an amendment stands upon the notice paper in the form of a notice of motion on second reading, consideration or third reading of such bill:
Provided that no such notice of motion shall stand on the paper for more than seven days unless renewed.

(3) No opposed business shall be taken on a Friday.

(4) Business deferred under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this order shall be considered at the time of private business on the day appointed unless the Chairman of Ways and Means directs that such business shall be set down for seven of the clock on any specified Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, and business so set down (including any motion contingent directly or otherwise upon any item of such business) shall be taken in such order as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine:
Provided that business so set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means shall be distributed as nearly as may be proportionately between the sittings on which government business has precedence and the other sittings.

(5) On any day specified under paragraph (4) of this order at seven of the clock or as soon thereafter as any motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) has been disposed of, the business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means shall be entered upon and may be proceeded with subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) although opposed.

Standing Order No. 16 (2)

Line 17, at end insert "made respectively after notice either at the commencement of public business to be decided without amendment or debate or after the interruption of business in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 1A (Exemptions from Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House))".

Standing Order No. 59 (1)

Line 3, after "bills", insert "certified under Standing Order No. 60 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)".

Standing Order No. 60

Line 6, at end add "provided that a certificate shall not be withheld by reason only that a provision of that bill amends the First Schedule to the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957".—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

7.46 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: I will not detain the House for more than a minute or two in making one or two comments. When the Leader of the House made his first statement about the Procedure Committee, he referred to the appointment of a Standing Orders Committee. That has not happened; we have heard nothing about it. Consequently, we are having alterations to Standing Orders coming before us in penny numbers and it is not easy to get a comprehensive picture of the situation when we have the alterations in this way.
As the Leader of the House knows, there will be other Standing Orders to be amended. I still hope to persuade the right hon. Gentleman that Standing Order No. 58 is wrong. It is wrongly worded because, taken in conjunction with a Sessional Order of the Selection Committee, there are words that are quite unnecessary. Then there is Standing Order No. 93 which, when read in conjunction with Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 7, does not make much sense.
I wonder when Standing Order No. 4 will be altered. Year after year, a Sessional Order has to be passed because Standing Order No. 4 just does not make sense in present circumstances. Perhaps what happens later after this debate will be the last of the alterations to be made as the result of the Procedure Committee's Report and then, perhaps, we shall have the full, comprehensive alterations of Standing Orders that are necessary. I have no complaint against the amendments which are now before us to these Standing Orders.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I should like elucidation of what the Amendments which appear in the Schedule to the Motion will do with Standing Order No. 7. I have received representations from local authorities that, in some way or other, the provisions of the new Standing Order lessen what they describe as their rights in the way in which Private Business is dealt with in this House. I have read the existing Standing Order and compared it with the revised Standing Order included in the Schedule, and as far as I can see it is a rewording of the old Standing Order making the actual procedure to be followed rather

more clear than does the present Standing Order. If that is so, I would have no objection to it at all, but if the right hon. Gentleman is in some subtle way introducing certain amendments to the procedure, I hope he will give us an explanation as to what the alteration achieved by the proposed Standing Order really is.
I do not of necessity support the representations which have been made to me, but inasmuch as misgivings have been expressed by the well-advised officers of local authorities, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some short explanation of what he is doing.

7.50 p.m.

Captain Richard Pilkington: Before my right hon. Friend replies, I should like to ask him a question about Standing Order No. 7. As I understand it, the Joint Committee of 1955 recommended that if there were to be any objection to a Private Bill there should be six signatures. The present proposal brings it to only one. I have received representations from my own local authority, which is concerned with bringing forward a Private Bill in the new Session. I wonder if my right hon. Friend would tell me whether it would be a good thing to have six signatures?

7.51 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): In reply to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington) I can say that, in fact, this is a recasting of Standing Order No. 7. The only possible observations which I could make are that in this recasting effect is given to the method of opposing Private Business recommended by the Select Committee, so there is nothing very revolutionary about it differing from what the right hon. Gentleman indicated.
This is the procedure. Opposition having been indicated orally, opposition subsequently can be registered by notice on the Paper, effective for not more than seven days unless renewed. The only other point about Private Business is that the rule which precludes opposed Private Business from not being taken after nine o'clock is abolished. I do not think that either of these does violence to the local authorities.
It was drawn to my attention before this debate that some of them, as my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, were more in favour of the recommendation made by the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure as distinct from the Select Committee on Procedure of this House which was debated on 22nd January, 1958. They said that Mr. Speaker could in all cases declare a Second Reading carried unless a reasoned Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading were standing on the Order Paper and signed by at least six Members. They recommended that this Rule should not apply when the Chairman of Ways and Means indicated to him that a Bill raised a new and important principle. We have not, in fact, accepted the view of this particular Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure. We have accepted the less burdensome method recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure, and that follows up our debate when we discussed these things on 22nd January, 1958, and when I spoke on the matter I deliberately preserved the right of the individual Member, because I said that this was traditional practice which it would be ill to change.
All that this does is to follow up the Amendment, that the notice of Motion is effective for not more than seven days unless renewed. The recasting is, therefore, simple. I do not think that any local authorities would have any violence

done to them. There is this slight difference of opinion, to which I have drawn attention, between the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Private Bills Procedure and our own Select Committee. I hope that, with that explanation, we may pass the Amendments.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have listened with interest to what the right hon. Gentleman said. It may be that I have not fully followed him, but as I understand him this means that no Member for the future, if this Standing Order is accepted in its new form, can by rising in his seat and uttering just the word "Object" postpone the business to another day. [Interruption.] He can? Then, in addition, does he have to put a Motion on the Paper?

Mr. Butler: As I said, opposition can be subsequently registered by notice on the Paper, but the first objection is, in fact, the one to which I referred in the debate on 22nd January—by getting up and saying "Object".

Mr. Glenvil Hall: In other words, a private Member has one bite and no more.

Mr. Butler: That is it.

Question put and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sharples.]

CONTROL OF EXPENDITURE (PROCEDURE)

7.56 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I think it was arranged originally that it would be convenient if we had a short debate, for which I think there should now be time, on the subject of Parliamentary control of expenditure. The House will probably remember that after consultation with the usual channels and discussions with the Members on both sides, including the Chairman of the Select Committee on Estimates, I announced shortly before the Summer Recess details of the Government's proposals for meeting the wishes of the House, of which there had been some expression on both sides, for some improvement in the procedure for control of expenditure. Hon. Members raised a number of important points and I indicated that it would obviously be desirable to hold a debate on the subject after resuming in the autumn. We have now that opportunity, and I hope the discussion today will prove useful for expressing considered views and opinions on the proposals now that hon. Members have had some time to digest the rather long statement I made in July. We should be grateful for any constructive suggestions for carrying the arrangements into effect.
Let me shortly remind the House of the details of the Government's proposals. First of all, direct control over Government expenditure by the House is or should be currently exercised first by the House as a whole—it is because we saw the difficulty of that that we made some additional arrangements; secondly, through the Select Committee on Public Accounts; and, thirdly, through the Select Committee on Estimates.
It is, of course, open to the House also, through the various procedural opportunities which exist to bring Government expenditure under review at any time. In practice, however, it is by the use of the 26 allotted Supply days that any discussion on Estimates would be likely to take place. By established custom it is the Opposition who choose both the subjects for debate on those days and the form which our discussion should take. I have never indicated that

I was able in any way to coerce the Opposition, only to influence them, and I hope that in exercising their undoubted constitutional rights they will remember the value of having literally financial debates, too, at least on some Supply days, and not making them all what I would describe as political debates. We have had conversations on those lines, and I must leave this matter now to the Leader of the Opposition.
The Select Committee on Public Accounts makes invaluable contributions to our procedure for control through ex post facto examination of the Government's expenditure which is not without relevance either to the present or the future. I read the very powerful article by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), and I would simply like to say in passing that we cannot forget the work of the Public Accounts Committee, although most of what I shall say is about the Estimates Committee, and I should like to pay tribute to the work done by the Public Accounts Committee and the quality of that Committee in operation.
I should like to answer one point which I read in the public Press. There is no intention that a Treasury minute giving the Government's comments on that Committee's recommendation should be superseded by Ministerial replies in the course of debates in the House. I simply drop that in because perhaps we have not paid sufficient tribute to the work of the Public Accounts Committee.
Nevertheless, it is to the Estimates Committee that the task of more detailed examination of current Estimates falls and it is this Committee which the Government have decided should be the focal point for our new proposals. These proposals amount broadly and shortly as follows: Firstly, we suggest an increase in the membership of the Estimates Committee from 36 to 43 in order primarily to enable the Estimates Committee to set up an additional Sub-Committee. We expect, in the second place, that one of the Sub-Committees of the Estimates Committee will be able to examine and report upon the Spring Supplementary Estimates before they are required to be passed in Committee of Supply. Thirdly, we look forward to a report by the Estimates Committee in the summer on the principal variations between


Estimates before the House and those for the preceding financial year.
Fourthly, we look to the introduction of new opportunities for debates as follows. There should be three days, one out of the Government's time and two allotted Supply days, upon which reports from the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee would be considered. We expect that one of these days would be taken before Christmas for a financial debate on the Report from the Estimates Committee on the variations in the Estimates to which I have referred.
In addition to that time, which is three days, we also propose a day before Christmas, out of the three days customarily allotted to debates on reports of nationalised industries, for a debate on an autumn White Paper on public investments. This autumn the Government propose that there should be on this occasion a two-day debate on a White Paper on public investment. Opportunity should be taken on the second day for a more general debate to discuss matters of supply expenditure rather on the lines of that envisaged in the Select Committee Report.
I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be presenting a White Paper to Parliament on the first day of next month which will give current figures for the public investment programme for 1960–61 and 1961–62. This White Paper will contain some discussion of certain general questions concerning public investment in relation to economic policy. In addition, it will discuss investment by the nationalised industries, by Government Departments and by local authorities, much of which is dependent upon the moneys voted by Parliament.
Part of our debate, therefore, will appropriately refer to a large amount of Supply expenditure. We shall be submitting in due course a type of broad Motion upon which we think a two-day debate could be held on these matters which, as hon. Members will see, raise pretty wide financial questions. I hope therefore that hon. Members will agree that publication of this White Paper is evidence of our desire to give early information about this important sector of public expenditure in a form which should prove useful to the House

and provide a background for what should be a really profitable debate.
The nature of the Motion should be broad enough to ensure that the House can use it to advantage. As at present informed—and I can only give a forecast of how this will work out—I think that the debate would take place after the debate on the Address so that if there are references to the economic situation in the debate on the Address there can be a broad debate on investments on the lines which I have outlined on which the House would have ample opportunity for discussion. The Paper would be useful to the House in taking a forward look.
Additional work under this new procedure will fall primarily upon the Estimates Committee, and in due course we shall be proposing an Amendment to the Orders of Reference of that Committee which the House can examine at a later date. I should like to pay tribute to the members of the Committee and to thank the Chairman for his co-operation in discussing these matters with me.
During our brief discussion last July, the Chairman of this Committee expressed his apprehension at the difficulties which were likely to arise on account of the timetable to which the Committee would have to work in its examination of the spring Supplementary Estimates, which hon. Members will realise from their experience will be a very tight programme indeed. I noted the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I subsequently consulted my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on this question since it is he who, as the House will know, is responsible for presenting the Estimates for the Civil and Revenue Departments.
As a result, we have worked out procedure which, in our view, allows the Select Committee a not unreasonable time in which to examine selected Supplementary Estimates, including calling before it such Departmental witnesses as it might wish, and to report briefly upon them to the House shortly before the Supplementary Estimates are accustomed to be taken in Committee of Supply.
In all this, the Financial Secretary has assured me of the fullest co-operation of the Treasury in assisting the Estimates


Committee in the discharge of its difficult and important task within the limits imposed by Parliamentary and Estimates timetables. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton on how the arrangements for the coming spring will probably work out on the basis of the provisional Parliamentary programme as we currently see it. I do not think it necessary to trouble the House with details but I hope that the Chairman of the Estimates Committee and his colleagues will feel able to carry out their new responsibilities in relation to the spring Supplementary Estimates on the basis of arrangements which we have proposed. I have had a further conversation with my right hon. Friend in an endeavour to explain to him how we hope to expedite matters and to help him.
An important element of our new procedure is the general debate scheduled to take place in the autumn on the Report by the Estimates Committee on the variations in the Estimates. I ought to make clear that of course there has not been time for this procedure this autumn. Therefore there must be no misunderstanding. The new arrangements are yet to take effect so there will be no such Report available to the House this autumn.
This summarises the various plans that we have in mind, but I ought to make reference to a statement which I made last July on the position of the Committee currently sitting under the Chairmanship of Lord Plowden in relation to Parliamentary control of expenditure. I am informed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the work of this Committee is continuing. It remains the Government's intention to announce to the House in due course their conclusions based on the advice contained in the Plowden Committee's Report. I am not yet, however, in a position to give any indication when this might be or to indicate what bearing the fruits of the Committee's deliberations might have on the subject now before the House.
The House will be aware that we have put forward proposals for including Parliamentary procedure in relation to control of expenditure. When we put them forward I think that they were

widely welcomed. They constitute a pretty considerable step in view of the crowded character of the Parliamentary programme in these modern times, and they get away from the difficulty we all on both sides of the House notice, of the almost impossibility of relying upon the House, sitting as a Committee of the whole House, or as a House, giving detailed examination to Estimates. By this procedure we think that there should be an opportunity for a variety of useful debates on the Reports of the Estimates Committee and on the Reports of the Accounts Committee. There is also the proposal of the spring Estimates Committee and in relation to the variation between Estimates, on which, in so far as the Committee can undertake so difficult a task, the Committee will have an opportunity to put its views before the House. I hope that in taking their place among the more traditional Parliamentary procedures we shall find that in these procedures we have done something and have taken a small step today and on a previous occasion to restore to the House some of its original purpose, namely, the control of public expenditure.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: The desirability of a closer control and scrutiny by the House of Government expenditure is not in question. It is one of those things we all agree about. It is easy, however, to establish, to lay down, the desirability itself, but it is more difficult to see how to do it in practice. I make plain, first, that when I am speaking about the desirability of closer control of Government expenditure I am thinking of it in the sense of getting the best possible value for money. That must be distinguished sharply from questions of policy, which we quite properly debate here a great deal.
We on this side certainly could not accept the proposition that there is anything necessarily inherently good about a reduction in Government expenditure. Such a reduction might or might not be good, but it might mean starving urgently needed public services, in which case we should not be in favour of it. There is some danger, as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out, of our getting into a position of private affluence and public


squalor. I do not think that we want to do that—certainly, we on this side of the House do not.
We are not, however, concerned with that aspect today but solely with the question of trying to get the best possible value for money. Suggestions were made when this subject was aired some months ago that it was the business of the Opposition to arrange that the House could scrutinise Government expenditure more adequately by devoting its Supply days, or more of them, to that subject. We could not accept, as an Opposition, any dictation about how Supply days should be used, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House at any time suggested that he would wish to do that.
It is for the Opposition to decide what should be discussed, and they are completely at liberty, if they so desire, to take Supply formally, to put down Motions and to concentrate all their attention for the time being on one particular Government Department, or, again if they so desire, to spread the debates on Supply days among a number of different Departments and to devote each one of those to the kind of detailed scrutiny of Estimates to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. This is the prerogative of the Opposition.
I will, however, agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his statement in saying that certainly the Opposition do normally, and, I am sure, will continue normally to use some of their Supply days for reviewing particular Departments and their work as a whole. Even so, however, I think that we delude ourselves if we think that a debate of that kind—and to my knowledge there have been many such in the last fifteen years—will really achieve the kind of check on expenditure by the Government which, I believe, is in the minds of the right hon. Gentleman and Members opposite.
What almost always happens in a debate on the Vote of a particular Department is not that individual Members solemnly go through the Estimates and ask questions about every item in them. In effect, they make speeches on points which are points of policy or administration rather than financial ones. I do not see how one can possibly prevent them

doing so. The only way, in my opinion, by which one can effectively scrutinise either Estimates or past expenditure, is by process of question and answer in a Committee.
That cannot be done in a debate in a Committee of the whole House. Hence, I think that the right hon. Gentleman has come to the right conclusion—as he says, all this was discussed between us before he made his statement—by putting the emphasis on improving the Estimates Committee's capacity for handling the Estimates on one side and providing more opportunity for this House to discuss the Reports of the three Committees that he mentioned than we have hitherto had. I am not saying for one moment that the House should not discuss these things, but it will discuss them far more effectively if the process of question and answer has taken place hitherto in one of the Select Committees.
I shall make a brief reference to the Plowden Committee. One very useful service can and should be performed by the House—that is, to debate the internal system of control of expenditure. That is a sensible thing for us to discuss. It can be done without question and answer. It can be looked at from the point of view of seeing whether it is efficient or not. From my own experience, I think that it is important because, although I am sure that the Select Committees can do, are doing and will do very valuable work, in the last resort the most powerful check on Government expenditure and getting value for money must come from within Whitehall.
It must be, therefore, with the system of checking expenditure that we ought to be particularly concerned. If we were satisfied about that there would be much less reason for anxiety, though it would remain desirable to have the Estimates Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.
I hope, therefore, that the Government and, in particular, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—whom I am glad to see in his place—will not merely publish the conclusions of the Plowden Committee, but will consider—as this is not covered by those conclusions—whether we could not have a Report setting out what the present system is as well as


what changes the Committee may recommend, so that we could then have from such a White Paper a useful debate on the internal system of checks and controls.
I have no criticism to offer about the particular proposals in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. They were, as he said, agreed between us. I compliment the Estimates Committee on the hard work that it has put in. I believe that it has published five Reports in the course of the summer, but I have only had time, I must confess, to glance at the conclusions. There is certainly plenty of material there for the House to debate, if it so desires. The idea of a special report on variations in public expenditure from year to year is a good one, though I appreciate that we cannot begin that properly until next year.
The final agreement which we reached on the time to be provided is a reasonable one. The Opposition give up one Supply day, the Government find one day, and we take one, in effect, from Private Members' time. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), who is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, specifically asked that that Committee should be consulted about the way in which the time should be divided up. I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman will be conducting these consultations in the near future. It would be as well if, as soon as possible, we were given an idea of how we were to use this time.
The right hon. Gentleman also made reference to the publication of a White Paper on public investment and told us that there was to be a two-day debate quite soon on a White Paper to be published at the beginning of next month. When the right hon. Gentleman made his statement in July some of my hon. Friends asked exactly what would be included under public investment and, in particular, whether public funds made available to private industry were covered by this. The right hon. Gentleman said then, I believe, that anything that was below the line was covered. Perhaps he could now be more specific. Presumably the agricultural subsidies will not be covered by this White Paper,

but, on the other hand, I imagine that loans to iron and steel firms will be. What is the position of the grants made to the cotton industry? Perhaps we could have some clarification of these points.
I confess that I am not entirely satisfied that the effort devoted to public investment alone will necessarily produce a very good debate. I may be wrong, and I am certainly open-minded, but if we are to broaden the debate, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest, into wide issues of economic policy, I am not sure that it is sensible to have the figures of public investment only. We are almost getting into a position, are we not, in which we ought to have a preliminary Economic Survey, or something of that kind. But we are content to see how this goes before passing any final judgment.
There is another question: who will provide the time for this debate? As I understand our agreement, we said that there would be the three days for the nationalised industries and, that, taken out, or possibly taken out, of those three days, there would be one day for a debate on public investment. I must make it perfectly plain that the Opposition have the right, and, I think, must continue to have the right, to choose what those three days are used for. It is for us to decide, not for the Government, whether they should be used for a particular nationalised industry or for public investment as a whole, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that that is how he understands the matter. Perhaps he could also tell us whether the debate which is to take place in the near future will be out of Government time or not.
With him, I think that the proposals which he put forward are reasonable. Probably they will not satisfy everybody, but this is a sphere in which, I think, it would be as well to move fairly cautiously and with a bit of experimenting. I am sure that the right procedure is to strengthen the existing Committees and to find more time to debate their Reports, and I think that the division of the sacrifices between the Government, the Opposition and private Members is fair. Although, no doubt, we shall have to return to this subject again in the near


future, after we have had some experience of the new arrangements. I certainly agree that this is a valuable step forward.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he was seeking to meet our wishes in the matter of control of expenditure, and I for one am grateful for what he has done. For a hungry man even crumbs are an acceptable meal. Bat I would not go as far as to say that they were entirely satisfactory, and some of us would have preferred a little meat and even some blancmange, too.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend was right to pay such a high tribute to the work of the Estimates Committee. It has done extremely well. Some years ago I had the honour to sit on that Committee. I think that the Committee's work has been good and is improving. But I am doubtful as to how far some of its new functions can be effective.
First, there is the question of examining what my right hon. Friend described as the Spring Estimates. The Guillotine normally falls about 15th March. My right hon. Friend is expecting an early Spring if he thinks that those Estimates can be reported on and debated by the House before the end of the financial year. I will tell hon. Members what I think we shall get out of this provision. In the old days, when there was no Guillotine on Supplementary Estimates, Ministers were very anxious not to incur Supplementary Estimates because, if they did, they and their friends could be kept up all night by an active Opposition, or even by their own back benchers, and they became very unpopular as a result. Now, they do not mind very much, because they cannot be kept up. What will happen under this provision is not that the Ministers will mind very much but that the poor officials will once again be hauled over the coals before the Estimates Committee for misdeeds which, technically and rightly, are the responsibility not of themselves but of their Ministers.
This is better than nothing, but there are times when it will not be effective; I suspect that it will have very little effect indeed.
The next question concerns more debates on the Reports of the Public

Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee. I think that that is probably right, but it would be a mistake if, as suggested in my right hon. Friend's original statement, this resulted in their shortening their Reports. I think that the great thing for both Select Committees to do is to examine the evidence with great care and then pronounce upon it with weight—and when they do examine matters with care and pronounce upon them with weight they receive very good publicity. I have noticed a number of recent Reports which have received excellent publicity. To over-simplify and over-shorten the Reports just for the sake of rushing it forward would be a bad thing.
The House always refuses to discuss something which bores it. It is perfectly open to the House now to discuss any Report of either the Public Accounts Committee or the Estimates Committee. Often we do debate them. But if hon. Members had before them a Report which examines only details and not policies, I strongly suspect that it would be difficult to keep a House—and we should be wasting time very often when matters more interesting to the House and intrinsically of far greater importance could be discussed.
I confess that I have some difficulty in understanding the suggestion that the Estimates Committee should make a report for the autumn calling attention to the differences between the Estimates already published for the current year and the Estimates of the year preceding. Surely that is rather otiose. When the Estimates are published in the spring, anyone interested can look at the newspapers and see exactly by how much they exceed, collectively and individually, the Estimates for the previous year. What the Estimates Committee can add to that, I do not know.
This brings me to the crux of the whole matter and to the proposal which I tentatively put to the House. What the House wants if it is to discuss expenditure seriously is not only something of what is going to happen about capital expenditure, presumably in the nationalised industries in the main, but what the prognosis is for current expenditure on existing policies. We have been told that capital expenditure by the nationalised industries this year will be held,


but I ask hon. Members to be extremely careful before they accept an idea that capital expenditure in a nationalised industry has been held. What normally happens when an effort is made to retard an existing plan is that the money does not come into the current year because the investment plan is made to run more inefficiently. The men and materials are generally still there but things are not delivered quite so quickly and events do not happen quite so quickly as they might. Often this does not release any resources, but in any case it is only one aspect of our financial affairs and by no means the largest.
If the House is to express a serious view upon expenditure which might influence Ministers in making up their Estimates—which is the point in the original proposal for a split vote on account—then hon. Members must have before them not only some account of the previous expenditure but a view of what current expenditure will be, based on current policies, and if the current policies are not altered have a fairly clear idea of what they are in for. That is what I should like to see. Once again, I thank my right hon. Friend for the crumbs that he has thrown us, which we will do our best to consume.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: The House always listens to the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) with great interest, and in view of the fact that his last office was at the Treasury we listened with particular interest to what he had to say tonight. I note that he concluded with the very words with which I intended to conclude, namely, that the Government's proposals are just a few crumbs. I gather that he and some of his hon. Friends—and certainly we on this side of the House—would like to have something rather better.
A great deal of the trouble rests with the Treasury. I have had the privilege of serving on the Estimates Committee for ten years, and I speak particularly from that point of view, although, no doubt, the Chairman of the Estimates Committee will convey to the House the sense of the meeting that we had before the Recess to discuss this statement.
The Estimates Committee does an extremely good job. It is a job not fully recognised either in the House or outside, and I think that very few hon. Members realise the difficulties under which the work is done. We have no officials of any kind, apart from the Clerks of the House, to advise the Committee. We have no expert advice. It places—and I say this as one who has not had the responsibility and privilege of acting as chairman of a sub-committee—an enormous burden on the hon. Member who acts as the chairman of the sub-committee in an investigation.
It may well be that the Government's proposals are putting a great burden on the Committee, but it is a burden which. I think, the Committee will be willing to shoulder, provided it feels that it is going in the direction that the House wants. With the Estimates Committee, and I suspect also with the Public Accounts Committee, about which I know very much less, it is probably more a matter for Government Departments to co-operate with the Committees in making more information available at an earlier time and in a more easily digested form than it is to ask another committee to produce another report. In the nuclear age of the 'sixties, Government accounts are kept in a form which would disgrace a small grocer. They have been described by experts on the subject as being kept on a penny note-book basis. I am quite certain that if Government accounts had to be submitted to the Board of Inland Revenue for scrutiny it would not accept them as being a proper and adequate account of what went on.
We have had the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint, West, a former Treasury Minister, who suggested that one got round the figures a bit by having the bills come in a little bit earlier or a little bit later. It is in the Government itself that things will have to be done, and we shall have to press to see that they are done, to give more information to hon. Members on committees of this kind and through them to the House.
The day has come when Government Departments will have to pay some regard to the difference between expenditure on capital account and expenditure on revenue account. It is absolutely disgraceful that the Government should


come along with this kind of proposal without attempting to get to the fundamentals of the issue, fundamentals which are completely within their control. Three-quarters of the trouble, as is the case in any Government Department when one attempts to go into a problem, rests with the Treasury. With almost any subject, including foreign affairs, we can say what we would like to do and what is Government policy, but we do not know whether we can get it past the Treasury.
That is a matter about which hon. Members of this side of the House can do very little. It is a responsibility which rests with the Government. All hon. Members, especially hon. Members opposite who have been very vocal in demanding an autumn debate on Estimates and so on, should realise exactly what they are being offered. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not having been here to hear his opening speech, but I have had an account of what he has said. I understand that all the Estimates Committee can properly do is to deal with the Estimates for 1960–61, which came out in the March-April season, then reporting to the House in the autumn about significant changes. The reports, however, do not come out for six or nine months. On the long-term Estimates, we cannot have an autumn debate on any information at present available on trends of Government expenditure for the next financial year, 1961–62.
If I am wrong, I hope that the Chairman of the Estimates Committee will correct me, but, as I understand it, all we can hope is to have a look at the Supplementary Estimates in the spring. We cannot attempt to give the House any guidance before the Budget and Finance Bill about Estimates which are produced only in March of next year. To ask even that is to ask a certain number of hon. Members to devote much of their time to a study of this question. That leads to what time is to be provided for debating the reports of the Estimates Committee.
It is true that some Reports have had a great deal of publicity, but in the ten years that I have been a member of the Estimates Committee I have felt that the publicity has been due much more to the choice of subject, to the

choice of Vote, than to the actual value of the report and the thoroughness with which the Committee had dealt with a Department. It is not letting any secret out of the bag to say that some Members of the Committee have understandably sought subjects which would have the possibility of being debated in the House. When one has devoted the major part of one's Parliamentary activity to a subject for nine months of the year, it is a little distressing to find that hardly any-body takes any notice of it. In a number of cases we have had great trouble about getting replies from Ministers and from Departments in reasonable time, but that is the kind of co-operation which we must get from the Government if the Government want the Committee to undertake this additional burden.
It seems that the time is to be provided one-third from the Government, one-third from the Opposition, and one-third from private Members. That is wholly wrong, and I hope that all back bench Members will insist that no private Members' time is given for this purpose. This is essentially an exercise of controlling the Executive. It is a function for which the Government should provide time, as it now has to provide time for certain other matters. The Opposition should also properly find time, but I resent the suggestion that the time of private Members should be devoted to what, in days when we are spending so much money, is essentially a function of the Government and of the Official Opposition.

Mr. R. A. Butler: When I spoke on the last occasion, I pointed out that in the coming Session we proposed to give the additional time to private Members which we gave in the last Session. In those circumstances, I think that the arrangement which we reached was not unfair to private Members. It is against the background of increased time for private Members that one day is to be allotted to debating expenditure.

Mr. Mulley: That is what is described in some quarters as "an Irishman's rise". It is given with one hand and taken back with the other. Either the right hon. Gentleman is giving more private Members' time, or he is not.

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member does not intend to study or listen to what I


say, I must be allowed to correct him. This will be in the ratio of at least a three-to-one advantage to private Members.

Mr. Mulley: As a private Member, I am like Oliver Twist. I should like all private Members' time for private Members' purposes. It is time that the oppressed on both sides had some say in this. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will not take it from me alone but will consult, as he usually does, the feeling of the House.
Echoing the conclusion of the right hon. Member for Flint, West, I say that these proposals are a few crumbs and not nearly the half-loaf which at one time some hon. Members thought that the Government were about to provide.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton (Thirsk and Malton): I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) said, but in this debate we are in danger of over-rating the importance of the work of the Committee of which I have the honour to be Chairman at present. The main control of expenditure must lie in the hands of the Government. In his article the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said exactly the same as Disraeli said ninety-eight years ago—which is a very valuable precedent—"Expenditure depends upon policy".
I always think that the relationship of the Select Committee on Estimates to Government expenditure is rather like our game of village cricket. When we put on the demon bowler not only did the captain look to see that his wicket-keeper was in good form and had his gloves on the right way round, but he also installed a long stop and then put the youngest member of the team as backstop right by the sight screen. What passed through the hands of the wicket-keeper and longstop might be stopped by the small boy in front of the sight screen.
The Select Committee on Estimates is the back stop. The demon bowler is the Government Department, often waste-fully extravagant. It is up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury to try to restrain that. In the three years during which I have been Chairman of

the Select Committee I have been surprised at the number of balls which have come to the sight screen for us to try to stop.
In view of what the Leader of the Opposition said, it is a pity that, although the Select Committee on Estimates made a Report on Treasury control of expenditure three years ago, there has been no debate. I reinforce the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman for such a debate. I know that the Government can advance a very good reason for not having put the debate on, namely, that, in view of our recommendations, the Plowden Committee was appointed. However, it is important that our internal system of control of expenditure, on which we commented adversely in many cases, should be justified by the Government in public debate, even before the Plowden Committee has reported to the Government. This is especially so because I understand that there will be no publication of any Report of the Plowden Committee. In view of that, I press the Government to try to afford an opportunity for the Report of the Select Committee to be debated.
As I see the rôle of the Select Committee, we have at the moment two functions. One is to go through the Estimate and try to discover the detailed cases of extravagance which have passed unscathed through the scrutiny of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury. Secondly, I have always regarded it to be a valuable function of a Select Committee to look at the machinery of Government, to see whether, by its structure, it is giving the taxpayer full value for money and is, in fact, as efficient as possible.
It is in that aspect of our work that in the last three years we have had to criticise, first, the system of Treasury control; secondly, the system of administration of Service lands; thirdly, the whole organisation of the medical services of the Service Departments and, more recently, the division of work at Admiralty headquarters, and its location; and the question whether those two separate Departments, the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office, provide an economical way of looking after affairs in the Commonwealth.
Two of the Reports that I have mentioned; have come only in the last Session, but to me it is a very sad reflection on our work that, unlike what my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) said, I think I am right in saying that, in the three years that I have been Chairman, we have had only two hours' debate on one Report—that was on the Police Report—and on a Friday; and in all these major matters on which we have reported, where Departments have frequently given replies belatedly but still in contradiction of some of our arguments, we have never had the opportunity of bringing the controversy to the Floor of this House.
I therefore welcome the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in promising opportunities for these debates. Although great and kind tributes have been paid in this House to the work of the Select Committee, I have read in the columns and correspondence columns of such organs as The Times a number of criticisms of its work. Before I address myself to the new duties that the House wishes us to undertake, I want to put on record some of the difficulties we face.
The Times regards us as a "lumbering watchdog"—[An HON. MEMBER: "Slumbering."] No, lumbering, unless the printers of The Times forgot the first letter. It is quite true that it takes time, but what has worried me in recent years—and I should like to bring the problem to the House—is the time taken, not only to obtain replies from Government Departments, but to get the Reports we present to the House printed and published and in the hands of hon. Members. This year we have presented five Reports to the House. They were presented in the first week of July and in the last week of July. The shortest period that elapsed between the presentation of a Report to the House and to the Stationery Office and its eventual publication was eight weeks, and the longest period was twelve weeks.
When we are talking in terms of trying to achieve, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West mentioned, a quick scrutiny and early Report into the bands of Members, I feel that it is quite

impracticable to suggest that it will turn out well if the Stationery Office needs so protracted a period for printing and publication. That is the problem. There is far too much delay, which means that when we appear to The Times to be a lumbering watchdog it is not our fault. We are barking in July, but the bark is not received until, in one case, I think, 14th October—a very long period.
Another criticism we have had by a distinguished correspondent in The Times, Mr. Paul Einzig, is not that we are a lumbering watchdog, but that we are barking up the wrong tree. The suggestion is that we ought merely to be looking at each item and not at these wider questions such as the efficiency of the Government machine.
I should like the House to address itself to this problem. I believe that it is important that Members of all parties in the Committee should look at the efficiency of the machine. We have the advantage of being able to compare Department with Department rather better than the Treasury can. It may well be that some of our recommendations do not please the Government or some of the Government Departments, but I think that we are serving a useful purpose in testing the machinery of government by this method. I personally believe that this is a tree which we are quite rightly barking up.
Let me come to the two additional burdens which are being put upon us. I think that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park has rather confused them by putting them together. They are two quite separate problems. First, the problem of the examination of the Supplementary Estimates which are normally received by the Treasury at the end of the current year and have to be passed by the House of Commons before the end of the financial year. That has obviously cut down the time of our consideration, but I am happy to hear from my right hon. Friend that he thinks that he can allow us probably the six weeks that I regard as essential for the whole process of our receiving the Estimate before our Report is published and put in the hands of Members. We must have at least six weeks; as long as we can have that period we can do a good job.
It will be experimental. We shall, no doubt, have to select certain Supplementary Estimates and call evidence on


those Supplementary Estimates, but I think that it is an experiment well worth trying, for it will enable the House to learn more about the Supplementary Estimates than it does under the present procedure.
The other function which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park mentioned and which was criticised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West is the comparison of the variation of one Estimate from another. Notes on that already appear in the Financial Secretary's Memorandum presented at the time of the Estimates. All that the House is asking us to do is to look further into the Financial Secretary's Memorandum and to bring out before the House the broad picture of the change in the Estimates to enable a good debate to hang on that in the autumn.
I cannot see that we can make very valuable recommendations on that examination, but I think it is an experiment well worth trying because it can enable a valuable debate to be held on it. We are always looking not only at the current Estimates but at the Estimates of the previous year because we are working in a Parliamentary year, whereas the Estimates are bound to a financial year. Comment upon that amount of variation is in all our Reports at the present time. I hope that these experiments will be attempted, and I shall do my best, if I still remain as Chairman, to see that they are carried out to the satisfaction of the House. That was the message that I was given by the Select Committee on Estimates.

Mr. Mulley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House his view on the autumn debate, which is very vital to our consideration? As I understand him, there is nothing of substance between us, and he has put the matter, as usual, rather more clearly than I did. The examination of Supplementary Estimates is mainly the consideration of how badly the Government estimated in the previous year, and in the autumn debate all that we shall have will be a much clearer and fuller account of the variations in the Estimates published in the previous April from those of the April 12 months before that.
There is nothing in this procedure at all to help us with the information so

far before the House or to give a forward look, which, I understand, was the demand of both sides of the House. There will be no forward look in the autumn as to the shape of the Estimates for the next year, or the shape of the financial problem facing the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that I have got it right in this rather rough way?

Mr. Turton: I agree that we will have no evidence of a forward look, but it is hoped that by making our comments on the variations between the two Estimates we may prompt the Government in their reply to give us something in the nature of a forward look. We cannot do it, because they would never give evidence of a forward look to the Estimates Committee, and that is one of the difficulties which we face.
I do not want to say more than this. On behalf of the members of the Select Committee from both sides of the House, I would like to thank especially the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition for their kind commendation of our work. I think that the most important aspect of our work is that we are Members of all parties who oppose each other on the Floor of the House, but who, when we get into the Select Committee, forget our party differences and work solely on our remit to try to control expenditure.
I hope that nothing we are doing tonight will in any way harm that very valuable co-operation. I believe that the value of the Estimates Committee lies in the fact that it is a completely non-partisan body, and I realise that it is because of that fact that, until now, it has been difficult for an Opposition to select one of our Reports for debate. We might well destroy that non-partisan character. I hope that we can find ways by which that can be avoided, so that we may continue in this work to the satisfaction of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: I am sure the whole House would agree that in the earlier part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was far too modest about the work of his Committee. I have no criticism of the


work of the Estimates Committee, but I have criticism of the use which the House makes of its Reports, and I shall have something more to say about that later on.
The suggestions which have been put forward by the Leader of the House do not solve all the problems and are not the last words on the control of expenditure, but they do mark a great step forward. Naturally, I cannot quarrel with the main recommendations which the Leader of the House put forward about referring these matters to the Estimates Committee, because what he has suggested follows very closely an Amendment which I moved in the Select Committee on Procedure, an Amendment which unfortunately was defeated, after great tribute had been paid to the work of the Estimates Committee. I hope that those people who voted against it on that occasion, now that the Leader of the House has taken it in hand, will support him tonight, and I sincerely hope that the Leader of the House will have more success than I had.
What I am not clear about is whether the Leader of the House thinks that this enlarged Committee, the additional Committee, will do all the additional work put upon the Estimates Committee. I am not quite certain, from what the Chairman of the Committee has said, whether he envisages that to be the position or not. For my part, I do not think that an additional small sub-committee can do all that would be expected of the additional work of the Estimates Committee. I think that for a time the other sub-committees will have to do, perhaps, what they are doing and take it over.
Reference has been made, particularly by the Chairman of the Estimates Committee, to the Reports of the Committee not being debated. In the Select Committee on Procedure, we were very anxious that additional time should be found so that all the Reports of the Estimates Committee and of the Public Accounts Committee could be debated. I do not want to take away Government time. I do not want to take away Opposition time. We were faced with the problem that the only way in which we could find additional time for the Reports to be debated, time not dependent

upon the whim of the Government or the whim of the Opposition—I take it that that is what the Chairman of the Committee would like—would be by sending more Bills to Committee upstairs.
That suggestion met with some approval, but there seemed to be a certain amount of opposition to sending the Finance Bill, either in part or in whole, upstairs. Those who were present during much of the debate upon the last Finance Bill will, I think, feel that it was the best argument for sending part of the Bill upstairs. If part of the Finance Bill could be sent upstairs, much additional time could be found for these other debates which, in my judgment, are very important.
The Chairman of the Estimates Committee is quite right to say that the Government may not want to debate some of the Reports. Other reports the Opposition may not want to debate. Again, as the right hon. Gentleman says, if either side selects them, this might destroy the non-partisan approach which one finds in the Estimates Committee. Therefore, if additional time could be found so that they would be taken automatically, that would, I am sure, be to the advantage of the House and there would be a greater opportunity to scrutinise the expenditure of public money.
The present position is not very satisfactory. I have served for a number of years on the Estimates Committee, and I know that, after we have submitted our Reports, we receive replies from Government Departments. But, of course, no Government Department is very happy to admit that it is in the wrong and that it should improve. On at least one occasion, we were so dissatisfied with the reply from the Ministry that we issued a second report criticising its reply. But nothing of that came to the House and nothing further was done about it. As the Chairman of the Committee said, during the past few years several very valuable Reports have been published by the Estimates Committee. A Report will receive a short reference in the daily Press, which is the last that is heard of it. It is quite wrong that all this valuable work should go for nothing. The House owes it to the Estimates


Committee and to the Public Accounts Committee to take more cognisance of the excellent work that is done.
I come now to the provision of two Supply days before Christmas, which, I take it, is still part of the Government's plan. This will be a great advantage to the House. It will give an opportunity at that time of the year to discuss finance without concentrating it all in a very short time. However, on the whole subject of the Supply days and of the debates which the Leader of the House has in mind, I am not quite clear about how many Reports from the Select Committee he intends to bring before the House and how he will select them.
It is true that we are to have the Report of the scrutiny of the Supplementary Estimates. In the autumn, we are to have the Report showing the difference between the current year's Estimates and the previous year's Estimates, with the forward look which the Chairman of the Committee seemed able to deduce from that. But what other Reports are to be debated? Unless we follow the suggestion of the Select Committee on Procedure and send the Committee stage of practically every Bill upstairs, how are we to find the necessary time?
I will not keep the House any longer, because a number of other hon. Members wish to speak. I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House has taken this initiative, and I welcome it all the more since he has taken the suggestion which I put forward in the Committee on Procedure.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. John Eden: Although the debate has taken place somewhat quietly and at a later hour than I would have wished, it is indicative of the change of attitude on the part of the House as a whole that it has taken place at all. We are discussing ways of trying to strengthen the procedure by which this House controls Supply, and, so far as I have been able to read and study, all the tradition that we have acquired and the procedure which we have built up to this date has been based largely on this one question of how we control Supply.
Disraeli has already been referred to once in this short debate. He said in Manchester in 1872, slightly later than

the time quoted by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), that
The main power of the House of Commons depends upon its command of the public purse and its control of public expenditure.
He linked the two things together, and I think that, in viewing the proposals of my right hon. Friend, we should still keep this before us as the main purpose, as our principal aim, and that we should judge such alterations in our procedure as are now proposed by how successfully they maintain those twin objectives. I can best summarise these by saying that, first, it is our aim, by exercising control over policy, to keep commitments to the absolute minimum necessary for the security of the people, and secondly, to ensure that by effective scrutiny of the administration and the spending of money we get the best possible value for it.
The Times, in a leader commenting on Sir Edmund Compton's speech to the Municipal Treasurers, summed it up in two ways by saying that public money must be correctly spent and public money must be efficiently spent. However, I do not think the Treasury can do this alone. It cannot ensure that these two desirable objectives are achieved solely as a result of its own efforts, and obviously nor do other hon. and right hon. Members, otherwise we would not have these proposals for strengthening the procedure by which we hope to assist it in achieving this.
I welcome the proposals of my right hon. Friend. I am not so certain that the strictures of my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) are accurate. I do not think that they will be shown to be just crumbs. To a great extent, it depends on the use that this House makes of them. They can be regarded as crumbs if we ignore the opportunities presented to us through the measures my right hon. Friend has suggested. After all, we have had for a long time the Committee of Supply and an opportunity to make the best possible use of that Committee. Initially, one could have regarded the proposals for establishing the Committee of Supply as crumbs. They will certainly become crumbs by the way in which they have been misused. However, generally speaking, I think that the proposals of my right hon. Friend are good.
I particularly like the fact that we are to try to get from the Select Committee on Estimates a short report on the Supplementary Estimates in the spring. I hope that this will not in any way detract from the responsibilities of the Committee of Supply itself and will not mean that because the Select Committee comments upon details of the Supplementary Estimates, hon. Members of this House will be debarred from themselves commenting on those same Supplementary Estimates when they come before the Committee of the House.
I listened with great interest to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) had to say in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Estimates. I well understand the views which have been echoed by hon. Members on both sides of the House who serve on that Committee that they feel frustrated, aggrieved, hurt and angry that all their work and the valuable toil which they have put in to producing these Reports should so consistently have been ignored by the House as a whole. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, as Chairman of the Committee, and his Committee as a whole will not think of themselves as in any way taking the part of a Royal Commission and trying to produce a great, ponderous tome thoroughly exploring a subject which they have decided is worthy of detailed scrutiny and coming forward with recommendations for increasing expenditure rather than for reducing it, but will concentrate on what I certainly regard as the principal rôle of the Select Committee on Estimates, namely, to recommend economies to this House. If we can keep to that point, it will certainly be advantageous.
I am grateful at least, as I am sure the Members of the Select Committee on Estimates and every Member of the House must be, that these Reports, or certain selected Reports of the Committee, are to be debated by the House and that an opportunity is to be given for this to be done and that this applies equally to the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee. The Reports of the Public Accounts Committee will be particularly valuable if they continue to concentrate on the recurring items of expenditure which come before us—the

sort of things which are likely all too easily to be ignored by us here because we have voted them in a blaze of publicity when the policy was initiated and subsequently they become forgotten When, over the years, they develop and increase and inevitably cost more and more. It is this of which we in this House should be reminded.
It is hard enough to remind oneself about these things, and it would be helpful if the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, or of any of the other Committees, were to concentrate on What the right hon. Member for Huyton referred to as a built-in escalator of expenditure, which is an alarming side of the overall picture of Government expenditure with which we are confronted.
I suggest at this point that Ministers, when introducing new legislation and when making Second Reading speeches on Bills, should give some indication of where expenditure is likely to take place as a result of the passing of that piece of legislation, as to how much is likely to be involved and, if possible, to go further than that and relate it to some extent to the overall picture with which the Government are confronted. If each Departmental Minister could be made himself to tell the House how much a piece of legislation which he is advocating and introducing to the House will affect the overall expenditure position of the Government and relate that, if possible, to the taxation picture as a whole, it would be a salutary exercise for some of the principal spending Departments.
At any rate, I regard this as one of the principal duties of Departmental Ministers when introducing legislation, that before they present details of legislation in the form of a Parliamentary Bill, at any rate before they get excited about it, however valid and suitable and worthy and desirable it may be, they should themselves ascertain as far as possible what it will cost the country not in that year only but also in the years to come—the forward look which hon. Members have been talking about.
Whilst I am generally in favour of what my right hon. Friend has proposed, and I know he has done this after a great deal of thought and study and after giving consideration to the views not


only of the usual channels but also of some of us he might regard as unusual channels and has heard all sorts of opinions on this subject before making his proposals to the House, I do wonder why he has found it necessary to give two Supply days to the Opposition before Christmas. I noticed that an hon. Friend of mine, when asking him a Question on this subject when he made his original statement, asked him how it was possible that the Opposition could decide what to discuss on Supply days when no Estimates were before the House for them to select. I do not see, either, how it is possible.
Are we not in danger of getting away from the whole purpose of Supply days in the first place? Why in any case should so much be left to the Opposition? The Opposition have shown by their use of Supply days in the recent past, in the last few years, that they are more concerned to have general debates on general topics of policy, that they are more concerned than not that the debates should be on recommendations, on which at the end the House or Committee votes on clear party lines, and which, if they were carried out, would result in an increase in expenditure. Why should the Opposition always be considered in these matters?
And who, in any case, is the opposition? With due respect to hon. Members opposite, wherever they may happen to sit, who is the opposition? Where is it defined, in Erskine May or anywhere else, that in this case the opposition necessarily sits, on the benches opposite? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, making his speech earlier tonight in reply to the speech of my right hon. Friend, was extraordinarily arrogant and dictatorial, I thought, in the manner in which he took it to himself to choose and to decide on behalf of the House what should be discussed on these occasions. Why is it that this is just due to the Opposition?
It has been, I believe, the custom and practice for the last sixty years or so that the Opposition have the right, not to choose what debates shall be discussed, but the right to choose what Votes shall be scrutinised. There is no scrutiny of Votes which takes place when the Opposition choose a general debate for discussion. It is that point I wanted

to make. After all, my relations with my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, I am glad to say, are at the moment extraordinarily cordial and friendly, and I hope that they will long so remain, but is it not just possible, is it not conceivable, that my right hon. Friend would one day regard me as his opposition? Could it not happen? Why should I, in any case, be denied the right, which I regard myself as having as a private Member of this House, myself to call for a particular Vote to be scrutinised?
In spite of the assurances which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has given on behalf of the Opposition that they are going to adjust their attitude, that they will play ball, I am not so convinced. I am not so convinced that we shall get a sudden change of approach from the Opposition. They may change from supporting one person to supporting another, but whether they will change as suddenly from advocating items which will result in increased expenditure to advocating something which will result in a reduction in expenditure, I have my doubts.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The hon. Member has not looked enough at his Erskine May. On page 307, he will find a reference to
… the process (which has been in operation for a long period) whereby the consideration of votes in Committee of Supply has lost its literal and acquired a symbolic meaning—in other words has ceased to be a consideration of the financial reasons for the Crown's demands and become an occasion for criticising administrative policy.

Mr. Eden: Because an abuse has been in operation for a long time, it does not mean to say that it should continue indefinitely. Because this practice has fallen into abeyance, it does not mean that we should allow it to continue to fall into abeyance. Particularly when Government expenditure is such a high figure as it is today and is likely, as far as one can judge, to increase in the years to come, it is more incumbent than ever on hon. and right hon. Members opposite to exercise their constitutional right to scrutinise Government expenditure and not to shelter behind extracts from Erskine May.
If the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Michison) will recall the quotation which I gave at the beginning


of my speech from Disraeli, he will remember that Disraeli did not speak of the Opposition. He said that the main power of the House of Commons depends upon its command of the public purse, not the power of the Opposition. We speak of the House of Commons as a whole on this matter of Parliamentary control of expenditure. The Select Committee on Estimates sits as representing the House as a whole. Likewise, we in the House in examining Estimates put before us in Committee of Supply sit as a House and not as a Government or an Opposition party.
It is because I am anxious that we should do more than pay lip-service to this and do more than recall memories of past debates and speeches in the House and elsewhere on this subject and because I am anxious to preserve the right of Members of Parliament to scrutinise these matters that I ask that one additional crumb should fall to hon. Members who sit on the back benches, either behind or facing my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. That request is that in each debate in Committee of Supply, regardless of who selects the Vote, there should be devoted a short time, perhaps of about two hours, for the purpose of allowing hon. Members from whatever quarter of the House to ask questions and to have short, sharp debates on certain specific Votes which they themselves would like to have examined. It should be a sort of "quicky" debate which the procedure of the House could well allow and for which room could be made.
I appreciate that it might well not be possible to take this at the end of a debate for procedural reasons, but could not this short debate take place in the first two hours of the debate on the Votes selected by the Opposition? This is not getting away from the so-called rights of the so-called Opposition at all. The Opposition can still choose the Votes that it wants to discuss generally, but let hon. Members on the back benches, if they so wish, put down selected subheads of the general Vote for close scrutiny by themselves and for questioning on individual items of expenditure the Ministers responsible for presenting those Votes to the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West said that such an effort by a private Member is, generally speaking,

boring. It may be boring, but I believe that it is absolutely necessary to preserve and keep alive this feature of our Committee of Supply procedure, and that it is the right and duty of an individual Member to scrutinise these things and question the Ministers responsible for presenting them.
I would not mind if this resulted in any one case in the defeat of the Government on a particular vote. That would be a good thing. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary should take too grievous a view about that. It is time that we got away from the tragedy of low votes and of the Government being defeated on one or two occasions. It does not matter. It matters only if the issue is one of confidence and if the Government lose the confidence of the country.
Let us get away from the idea that because we have a majority of twelve or six, or even if we lose by three votes, it is a great crisis and that the world will collapse overnight. It is of little significance. Let us keep a sense of proportion. One result might be to stop a Minister from so readily presenting a Vote which he would not be certain would be acceptable as a whole. If it resulted in a cut in Government expenditure in any way then I would be glad, because I am certain that a cut in Government expenditure is still the first requisite for securing a reduction in taxation—and it is that which we so urgently need in this country.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: I do not propose to enter into discussion about who is the Opposition, but I join the Leader of the House and other right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committees. I am not at present a member of either of these Committees and therefore have no inhibitions in commending their work. I do not think that the general public appreciates the number of hours spent on Committees upstairs.
These Committees perform very valuable work, but unfortunately they are primarily concerned with the past rather than with the present and the future. I did not entirely follow the simile put by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and


Malton (Mr. Turton) when he referred to the cricket field because, in his illustration, the fieldsman did stop the ball. In the case of circumstances under consideration by the Estimates Committee, the ball has reached the boundary a year or more before that Committee comes on the scene.

Mr. Turton: I do not think that the hon. Member has ever served on the Estimates Committee. Unfortunately, we have no Liberal member. We are examining current Estimates. We are examining this year's Estimates. If we find extravagance we put our hands to the ball, but, unless the House helps us, of course the ball trickles through to the boundary.

Mr. Wade: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman and I are greatly at issue. I have served on the Estimates Committee. I do not think that I am being unfair in saying that what so often happens is that when a Report is published there is a considerable amount of publicity, especially if there is some item intriguing to the Press, but it lasts only twenty-four hours. After one day it is stale news and one hears little more about it and there may be no debate in the House.
I fully sympathise with members of these Committees who feel that they have gone to a great deal of trouble, but that their work is not sufficiently regarded in this House. I should like to see the custom grow up whereby each of these Reports was debated on the Floor of the House. It may not be practicable to have a rule that every Report should be so debated, but I should like to see if a normal custom to discuss a Report produced by the Estimates Committee or the Public Accounts Committee.
I have not served on the Public Accounts Committee, but it has been put to me that it should be assisted by more expert advice. If I am incorrect in that statement, no doubt I shall be told so.
We must see how the new procedure for the Select Committee on Estimates works. I do not believe that it will entirely overcome the difficulties of debates on Supplementary Estimates which take place too late. We are generally faced with a fait accompli. Very often the House is called upon to

vote large sums with little or no discussion. That is a very serious aspect of our modern Parliamentary life.
I am not satisfied that this new procedure will deal with the problem of the relationship between expenditure and taxation. It is extremely difficult for the ordinary Member of Parliament to relate expenditure and taxation. He is handicapped by the Chancellor's close season, which seems to get longer every year, and also by the fact that there is no clear distinction between capital expenditure and expenditure which does not come into that category. I think that we ought to have some way of considering grants to the private sector of industry as well as investments in the public sector, because to get a true picture we must take into account the growing practice of making grants to the private sector of industry.
I have touched on these points only briefly and I have not intended to be destructive in my criticism. Economic life is becoming more and more complex, and I think that these reforms are necessary and overdue. In my opinion this subject will have to be reviewed every year in the light of experience. We cannot today reach a final opinion on the proposals which the Leader of the House has put forward. I think they will help, but it will be essential to review the subject annually if Parliament is to maintain adequate control over public expenditure.

9.33 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I entirely agree with the last remark made by the hon. Member for Hudders-field, West (Mr. Wade). This is an experiment. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that this is an experiment. It is, therefore, very important that we should have an assurance, before we accept these proposals, that we shall have a periodic review. I am not quite sure whether we shall be able to form an opinion after only one year, but the review ought not to be more than every three years and might well be every two years. Every two years we should have a further review of this system.
My main criticism of the proposals is concentrated rather on the omissions than on what is included in them. I


see nothing very obnoxious about anything which has been proposed, save perhaps the attempt to continue to separate expenditure from estimation. I am inclined to the view that in these days it is almost impossible, especially on some major items of Government expenditure, to separate the two.
There is no better example of this than that which is to be found in Vote 7 of the Air Estimates this year. It deals with supplies and services provided by way of airframes, aero engines, guided weapons and their electronic and associated equipment, vehicles, armament and ammunition. The total bill for this item was £238 million, and it may therefore be regarded as a major item of expenditure.
I will quote from the Explanatory Memorandum, which states that most of the supplies and services come either from the Ministry of Aviation or from the War Office. It continues:
Payments to the Ministry of Aviation and the War Office are, with certain exceptions, made under the bulk settlement arrangement.
I ask the House to consider this bulk settlement arrangement. It continues:
Under this arrangement, payment to each department in 1960–61 will be based on a forecast made towards the end of the financial year of the value of deliveries for the whole of the year, and will take into account any adjustment necessary in respect of the value of deliveries through each department during 1959–60 determined after the close of that financial year as compared with the forecast of value on which payment in 1959–60 was based.
The value of deliveries in 1960–61"—
that is, the current year—
will be determined after the close of the financial year and any adjustment necessary with either Department will be taken into account in the 1961–62 statement.
In other words, we have an overlap from the year before, based on a somewhat hazardous estimation of what it was likely to be, and then subtracted from what it was or added to what it was—or whatever it was, in fact, was subtracted from it; and that is then carried into a year in which another forecast is made, without any security that the forecast will be right, on the understanding that an adjustment will be made in the subsequent year if that forecast is proved to be wrong.
With that sort of arrangement running on a major item involving over £200 million, how can we possibly hope to separate expenditure from estimation?

My own view is that probably the experience of the war years is more relevant in this context. I think that those hon. Members who were in the House during the war years—I was not—will remember that there was a Committee on National Expenditure which took the place of both the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. I am inclined to think that that may be the right answer in the end, in view of the enormous complexity of public expenditure today.
I was a little concerned at the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition about Whitehall being the best controller of expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will remember that we had a debate some time ago on the question of the machinery of Government vis-à-vis defence and that we both came to the conclusion that there were times between the wars when the Treasury had perhaps too much control over expenditure, certainly in defence.
I am inclined to think that there are times when we have to prevent the Treasury from being too stringent. While, naturally, we want to keep a proper control from a Parliamentary point of view in the interest of the tax-payer over the expenditure of certain Departments, it is very important that the Treasury should never be given so much power that it can distort policy and prevent happening what the Defence Committee of the Cabinet, for instance, agree should happen. We know of occasions in the past when that did happen. We do not want to see it happen again.
I believe that Parliament ultimately has the best control over expenditure and that Parliament is about the only master that we can possibly expect to preserve the interest of the taxpayer over the Treasury. I do not believe that any other Department can. I do not think that Whitehall, as a whole, can. I think that it is Parliament that can. If Parliament fails, then heaven help the tax-payer. For that reason, we hope that we shall not regard these proposals tonight as final. We have to keep a review on this and I should like to see such a review every two years or so.
Finally, I believe that the work of the Select Committees ranks as perhaps


among the most important work of Parliament. When the Leader of the House first raised this question, in July, I asked whether we could have an assurance that the staff of Clerks serving these Committees would not be overloaded as the result of the proposals which have been put forward. The Leader of the House gave me a somewhat equivocal reply in that he said that a great deal would depend on the work of the additional sub-committee of the Select Committee on Estimates.
I would like to have an assurance that the whole question of the staffing of these Committees by the Clerks and so forth has been properly examined and that we can be sure that we will not find that other Select Committees of a different nature will suffer as a result of the setting up of this additional subcommittee of the Select Committee on Estimates. We all agree that the work of the Select Committees is done very largely on a non-party basis, some of the Select Committees being quasi-judicial anyway. It would be absolutely disastrous from the point of view of Parliament, especially in its capacity as the High Court of Parliament, if the work of the Select Committees was undermined by the staff being overloaded.
If it be necessary, Parliament should willingly ensure that adequate finance is available to bring in additional Clerks. Can I have an assurance on that matter?

9.41 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): I rise to speak, not to bring the debate to an end but to answer several questions which have been raised. I promise hon. Members who have been seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I shall not speak for more than ten minutes at the most.
I assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) that we are well aware that the work of all Select Committees, not merely those whose work we are considering this evening, is very greatly dependent on the skilled assistance which they receive from the Clerks. Certainly that will be borne in mind. I think that I should also assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, whatever may have been the case fifty or sixty years ago, I do not believe that today there can be

any danger of the Treasury circumventing the will of Parliament or circumventing the collective will of Ministers. I do not think that that is a real possibility, considering the way in which we attend to our affairs today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) asked a very pertinent question which was whether there would be time for the scrutiny of spring Supplementary Estimates. We have considered this matter and the best answer I can give is to say that, so far as I have anything to do with this as Financial Secretary, we will certainly see to it that Supplementary Estimates are made available to the House not later than approximately 7th February next year.
It would be possible, of course, to make that date a little earlier if the Select Committee had Estimates in proof form, but, subject to what the House may think, I believe that that might be a somewhat undesirable constitutional innovation. Personally, I believe that it is an innovation about which we should be very cautious. However, the Select Committee should have at any rate a good three weeks to examine the Estimates between, approximately, 7th February and the end of the month. So long as the House has the report of the Select Committee by approximately 7th March, we should have time for a debate before the Guillotine falls on 15th March.
I can assure my right hon. Friend of two things. The first is that I will exercise all my influence with the Stationery Office to see that the report of the Select Committee is given the highest possible priority and printed as soon as it is ready. Secondly, at the same time as the Supplementary Estimates are published, it will be quite possible for the Treasury to submit to the Estimates Committee a paper giving a sort of factual account of the Supplementary Estimates, rather on the lines of the commentary which the Financial Secretary gives in his Memorandum on the main Estimates for the Civil and Revenue Departments. Also, the Chief Treasury Liaison Officer with the Estimates Committee would be available to give further factual information in advance to the Committee. We will have to see how that works out, but I hope that the timetable is possible.

Mr. Turton: I said that in my view six weeks was the minimum necessary, but my hon. Friend has now suggested three weeks and quoted 7th February as the date. I remind him that that is one day later than the last day on which Supplementary Estimates have been presented to the House in the last six years. Indeed, there have been occasions when the Supplementary Estimates have been presented on 30th January and I think that one instance of that was in 1959. It would be quite impossible for the Estimates Committee to work under its system of sub-committees and a main committee in the short time that my hon. Friend has suggested. If we are not to see the Estimates until 7th February, the whole of the operation will be quite useless.

Sir E. Boyle: I see the difficulties, but I make two points in reply to my right hon. Friend. First, if the Supplementary Estimates are presented to the House too soon, they run the danger of not being absolutely accurate. There may be perfectly good reasons beyond anybody's control why what I might describe as a last minute Supplementary Estimate of some size may be required. The example which occurs to me, which occurred only last year, is a sudden outbreak of fowl pest which involved quite a large Supplementary Estimate relative to the Estimate which had been originally made.
Secondly, the number of Supplementary Estimates on which the Committee would be likely to wish to call for evidence is likely to be fairly small, because most Supplementary Estimates result either from sudden emergencies which no one could possibly foresee or from direct changes of policy completely outside the Department's control. Last year one Supplementary Estimate resulted from the increase in National Assistance scales. That is the sort of subject about which I do not believe that a great deal of expert evidence can take one very much further.
We must see how we get on. If necessary, we shall have to consider giving the Select Committee proof copies of the Supplementary Estimates before they are presented to the House. Obviously, the House must be the judge of that. It would be an important constitutional innovation, and we should at any rate think carefully before doing it.

Mr. Mulley: Is there any reason why the Supplementary Estimates known at the end of December should not be published early in January? If an emergency arose involving an additional Estimate, it could then be put up to the Committee as a separate item. The Committee cannot accept from the Financial Secretary or the Treasury witnesses what are the things it should look at and what it cannot look at. If the members of the Committee do that, they are not exercising their function as members of a Committee of the House. It is a question of time. We have other things to do than sitting on the Committee.

Sir E. Boyle: I did not suggest that the expert evidence of the Treasury would be a kind of conducted tour, as in a totalitarian country. My suggestion was purely meant to be helpful. On all these matters we shall certainly consider very carefully whether we can produce the Estimates any earlier. I will certainly take note of the hon. Member's point.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) mentioned the form in which the Government accounts are presented. I am well aware that our Government accounting system—the way in which the Estimates are presented—dates back nearly 100 years. We should certainly consider all the time whether we can make any improvement.

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman has not understood me correctly. I am not worried so much about the form of the Estimates. What I am worried about are two fundamental points. Firstly, the accounts are conducted on a receipts and payments basis and not on an income and expenditure basis. Secondly, there is no differentiation in the accounts between capital expenditure and revenue. Very often, revenue can be reduced by capital expenditure in the form of a new hospital or a new school, but we cannot tell from looking at the Estimates which is capital and which is revenue. Nor can we see the reduction in revenue which might arise from intelligent capital provision.

Sir E. Boyle: I assure the hon. Member that before the Estimates are next published I shall be very glad to discuss these matters with him.
The Leader of the Opposition raised a number of points. First, he made a


suggestion about the Plowden Committee. He said that, when the Government consider what conclusions they publish to the House, they should consider showing the difference between the present system and the changes proposed. I will certainly take note of that suggestion.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the forthcoming debate on public investment. The Report which will be considered on that occasion will be purely on the public sector. It will not include grants to the private sector. I must leave the right hon. Gentleman to discuss through the usual channels the precise question of out of whose time the days are taken for the debate.
On just one point the right hon. Gentleman was not absolutely accurate and fair. The three days for the debates on the nationalised industries are not at the call of the Opposition exclusively, because the reports to be debated are discussed through the usual channels, having regard also to the general wishes of the House. That has been the accepted arrangement ever since the days when Lord Morrison was Leader of the House.

Mr. Gaitskell: On that point, I think that the Financial Secretary will find that ever since this system was introduced it has been the custom for the Opposition to choose what should be taken on each one of those three days. The other point that I should like to put to him is this about grants for private industry not being included. I do not think that is very satisfactory, but can he tell us whether loans to private industry will be included?

Sir E. Boyle: This will be purely a White Paper on the public sector.

Mr. Gaitskell: If, in fact, the Government are finding the money it is part of the public sector.

Sir E. Boyle: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that loans to the private sector are not included, but no doubt he will have an opportunity to make that point when we debate the White Paper.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am sorry to interrupt again, but in his statement the Home Secretary said that all items below the

line would be included. Is it not the case that all loans are below the line?

Sir E. Boyle: I think that we must wait until the White Paper is published.
I will come now to what I think has been the most important question raised tonight: the question of Whether the House should have more opportunity—and how it could get more opportunity—to discuss reports on matters which involve public expenditure. I agree, in general, I think, with the Leader of the Opposition, that the only way in which the House can effectually scrutinise public expenditure is through question and answer in Committee.
There is a very great deal of truth in that. Indeed, I think that we should remember how much we owe both to the Estimates Committee—its work has been rightly praised this evening—and to the Public Accounts Committee. It is worth remembering that the propriety of Government expenditure—the question of whether public money is being spent in accordance with the will of Parliament—is really just as important as the question of whether public money is being spent efficiently.
There is one real difficulty in debating Select Committee Reports in this House, and that is the point very correctly made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West; that the House does not normally want to discuss what it finds boring and difficult. To be quite frank, we have to recognise that if we are to have a good debate on any Select Committee Report, it will involve much hard work on the part of many hon. Members. The difficulty of discussing in this House a very large number of Reports is that they can be discussed well only if hon. Members have taken a good deal of time and trouble to inform themselves, and if there are a good number on each side with some degree of expert knowledge.
It is significant, I think, that two Reports of the Estimates Committee which, while I have been a Member, attracted a good deal of attention in this Chamber were both Reports which, in a sense, did not involve a great deal of expert knowledge and did, in fact, lead to increased Government expenditure. One was the Report on School Buildings, about which all of us may feel qualified to speak from the experience of our own


constituencies, and the other was the Report on the Youth Service, which led to the appointment of the Albemarle Committee.
A real difficulty about discussing Select Committee Reports in this House is that many hon. Members in all parts of the House are extremely busy and, frankly, do not find it as easy as they would probably like to give the close attention to these issues that would be involved. Nevertheless, I myself think it a pity that we do spend quite so little time in discussing these valuable Reports from Committees. And without suggesting in any way that the Government should invade private Members' time, I do suggest that one possibility might be, rather more often, to spend two hours on a private Members' Friday in discussing the Reports from the Select Committees.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said that it takes too long to get comments from Departments. suggest that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint. West said, it is important for the Reports themselves to be weighty. They should not be too short. And the same considerations might well he applied to the replies as well. I must say that I do not think that the interests of the House would be really served by what I would call ill-considered replies from Departments. I do not think that most delays are unreasonable, and it is better to have a delay than an ill-considered reply from a Department—

Mr. Mulley: Mr. Mulley rose—

Sir E. Boyle: No, I am sorry. I have given way twice to the hon. Member.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Eighteen months for a reply!

Sir E. Boyle: The other point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton related to the time it takes to get Reports published. There, I must say that we are in a difficulty, because the printing services of the Stationery Office are under pressure at present. But in view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I will certainly do my best to see that reasonable priority is given to the Reports of Select Committees because I appreciate that it is important to the House to have them as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) made the interesting suggestion that not only should we have more discussion of expenditure in Committee of Supply but that the Government should not treat defeats in Committee of Supply too tragically. That would be a very big change in our constitutional practice.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) read out a passage from Erskine May. I thought he might have read out the next sentence which would have made his point even better—for it is true that for a long time there has been Government responsibility for the Estimates, which has been taken to cover every detail of every vote. For example, in 1895 a Motion for the reduction of an Estimate by £100 on a cordite vote brought down Lord Rosebery's Government.
I say this to my hon. Friend. On the whole, I think it is a good convention that the Government regards all issues of Supply as in a sense issues of confidence. We make a difference between issues of Supply and what one might call minor legislative issues. While I take note of his point, I think there is possibly some good sense in the traditions of Parliament in this respect.
I hope that these new arrangements will prove of value; I believe they will. I certainly think that the idea of a special debate before Christmas on variations between the Estimates of one year with the Estimates of the year before may be of value. People will want to find out why there has been any sudden variation.
We are concerned with the question of value for money. We are also concerned with the very important question that arises when a service of any kind is discontinued, namely, of ensuring that the discontinuance of that service is reflected in the Estimate. This is partly work for the House as a whole. It is to a great extent work for the Select Committees of this House. But perhaps, most of all, it is a continuing task for the Executive.
Important as it may be to ensure proper Parliamentary arrangements for the scrutiny of expenditure, it is surely more important for the Executive, day in and day out, to see that the large proportion of the national income taken today by


the central Government is really justified. All I can say is that it is a responsibility which the Executive takes very seriously, and which the Treasury shares with all the other major Departments of State.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) struck a note which echoed in the minds of many people when he expressed grave fears about the control that Parliament has over expenditure. Although the Financial Secretary tried to throw some cold water on my hon. Friend's ideas, I would not like to see them douched altogether.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that control of expenditure was exercised in three traditional ways—by the House, by the Select Committee on Estimates and by the Public Accounts Committee. But I would suggest that there is no control at all of expenditure by Parliament sitting in this Chamber. We are more generous today towards Governments than we ever were to any king in our past history. We put the Executive on a much higher pedestal than we ever put any king in the matter of Supply. Indeed, I think that Charles I, if he were alive today, would laugh when we pass thousands of millions of pounds of expenditure in a few minutes, when one thinks of the struggles that he had with Parliament.
I have tried to find when the House, sitting in Supply, last altered any Estimates or Supplementary Estimates of the Government. I believe that the last occasion when this was done was about forty years ago, when the Government's proposal for installing a second bath in the Lord Chancellor's residence was defeated by private Members. Lord Birkenhead, as Lord Chancellor, did not get his second bath. So successful was that control that no second bath, I understand, was installed in the Lord Chancellor's residence—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sharples.]

WAR DISABLED PENSIONER (MR. G. A. ROGERS)

10.0 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: The case I want to raise this evening is the hardest individual case that I have experienced in the ten years that I have been here. For the purpose of the record, I should like to outline the case, although the Minister is, naturally, well aware of all the circumstances of it. It concerns a Mr. G. A. Rogers, of Fife, who enlisted in the Royal Navy in May, 1941, at the age of 18. He was an extremely fit and healthy young man, very interested in sport, and, I think, was a boxer, which indicates some physical prowess. Within ten months of joining the Navy, he had an experience which he has never forgotten.
Rogers was on the run to Russia, to Murmansk, and in March, 1942, his ship, H.M.S. "Trinidad", was torpedoed. She got to Murmansk and was there for some while being repaired. On the return journey to this country, two months later, at reduced speed, she was again hit and sank. On both occasions, Rogers was within an ace of drowning. He was trapped below deck on each occasion and was taken out after seeing many of his comrades burned to death on the ship.
From that time onwards, this man appears to have completely gone to pieces, both physically and mentally. I have his medical records with me, and it appears that from the time when he returned to this country it is a record of hospital treatment, mental hospital treatment, inspections and investigations by psychiatrists, and so on. Eventually, it was agreed by the medical authorities that he was unfit for further service and was invalided out of the Service on 12th December, 1944, with a 20 per cent. pension for psycho-neurosis. The phraseology used by the Ministry at that time was that it was psycho-neurosis aggravated by service, but not caused by service, although I have indicated that Rogers was 100 per cent. when he went into the Service and that, as a result of these experiences, he was discharged in 1944. Since the sinking of his ship, though this period was one of misery for himself and his family, it was also a period of considerable hardship and anxiety.
From 1945 onwards, the medical story reveals the decline of a man who before the war was a healthy, adventurous 18-year-old with the world before him. Today, at the "ripe old age" of 39, this man is of little use to anybody. According to this record, he has had well over thirty jobs in that period, but he could not settle down to any one of them, could not concentrate because his nerves were shattered, and he is unable to make a contribution either for his family or for the nation.
In August, 1946, his pension was increased to 30 per cent. Subsequently, he had medical boards in 1947, 1949 and 1951, with no pension change whatever, although, according to his medical report, he had had rapid changes of job and countless months lost through illness of one form or another and hospital treatment of one form or another. Eventually, he got into the hands of the mental hospital at Stratheden, Cupar, Fife, being admitted there as a voluntary patient in May, 1952. He had another medical board in 1953, with no pension change, although, meanwhile, in the period 1951–53, he had had several more jobs, including an attempt to go to sea again.
I may be thoroughly unjustified in this, but I have the impression that there is an accusation of malingering. I hope that that is not so.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I should like to say once and for all that that suggestion has never been made and could never be made.

Mr. Hamilton: I am very glad to hear that, because I want to come to a phrase which was used by the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry which might have created that impression. Rogers attempted to go to sea again and, in fact, he went on a deep-sea tug to Malta, where he had a stomach haemorrhage and had to be brought home. Again, he went as a voluntary patient into the mental hospital at Stratheden, and, for the second time, left against medical advice within a week of being admitted.
Following an appeal by Rogers to the Ministry, the Ministry's Chief Medical Officer declared, in November, 1954—I quote from the man's medical history that

The cause of the condition lies in a constitutional defect in the make-up of his personality and his psycho-neurosis is therefore not attributable to service.
As a layman, I assert that that is a complete travesty of the facts as I know them.
The pension was later increased to 70 per cent. dating from May, 1954, when he appealed on the ground that his disability was caused, not only aggravated, by war service. In May, 1957, he appealed for his pension to be backdated. In a letter to me dated 25th April, 1960, the Ministry explained that it could not do this except back to 21st January, 1954. That was a concession of four months' back-dating, after British Legion intervention. Why was that concession given? What was the reason? Subsequently, the Minister explained why, and I shall come to that.
In his letter to me, the Minister asserted:
I am afraid I can only confirm that there are no grounds for awarding this increase from an earlier date.
However, on 18th July, 1959, the man's pension had gone up to 100 per cent., and on 28th January, 1960, he received the unemployability supplement. Constant attendance allowance, which had previously been refused, was granted at the half-day rate, at 17s. 6d. a week, following representations which I made.
In his letter to me, the Minister informed me that the unemployability supplement would itself be back-dated to 18th July, 1959, which gave an extra six months.
The Minister and I had subsequent exchanges. I confess at once that there was a good deal of sympathy expressed, but there was no more cash, and cash is what the man wants. The Ministry was quite adamant, but so was Rogers, so was his wife, and so was I. We should not be Scots if we were not persistent.
On 19th August I had a further letter from the Ministry back-dating the pension to December, 1953—that is, by another month. Therefore, after representations from the British Legion and twice from myself, there was backdating of these various pensions and allowances after it had been declared that no such concessions could be made. I make these comments not in criticism of the Ministry, but to emphasise the


fact that clearly there is discretion exercisable by the Department.
The final letter which I received from the Ministry was dated 19th September last. It was in answer to an appeal for the back-dating of the pension beyond 1st January, 1953. In that letter the Minister said:
There would need to be clear evidence that he"—
that is, Rogers—
was prevented by reasons outside his own control from appealing against his pension assessment earlier than 1st December, 1953.
The Minister said that between 1946 and 1953 Rogers had five separate opportunities to appeal, but did not do so. I think that that is the gist of the hon. Gentleman's case. The Minister went on, in his letter:
It cannot be admitted that his handicap was so severe as to prevent him from appealing throughout this period.
Having studied this medical history, again, I emphasise, as a layman, I emphatically and vehemently deny that this man was in any position to make a cogent appeal against his assessment. In that medical history there is abundant evidence that Rogers was not a normal person, either physically or mentally. There are countless references in it to "anxiety depression". There are references to hysteria, to his going in and out of mental hospitals as a voluntary patient, going out against medical advice after a week or two, and being examined by psychiatrists and neurologists twice in the mental home, all emphasising that this was not a normal person and therefore was not, like a normal person, likely to make the kind of appeal against a pension assessment which a normal person would make. I think that he was clearly a man who could not be aware of all the rights available to him.
I want to make this appeal to the Minister. He may pride himself in his generosity to date. Concessions have been given repeatedly, as I have admitted, but the impression is, perhaps, unfortunately created that these concessions have been forced out of a reluctant Ministry. In any event, I think that it is wrong to use the word "generous" in any case of this description. It is apparent that the Minister can exercise

a good deal of discretion. I think that I am right in saying that many years ago there was a Minister who, when a case like this came up and his civil servants found reasons for not giving a man what he was asking for, said to his civil servants, "You had better get back to the Ministry and find reasons for giving it". I wish that the Minister would do that in cases like this. Where there is the slightest shadow of doubt, that doubt must in all cases be given to men like this. That is all I am asking for.
I should like to put my appeal in the form of three requests. First, I should like the Minister to consider a substantial back-dating of the pension. Secondly, I should like him to consider the giving of the constant attendance allowance at the full rate, because, clearly, this man is in need of constant attention. Thirdly—and here I come to a point which is not the direct concern of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, but I am grateful to him for calling the attention of the Scottish Office to it—I should like him to consider the granting of a motor car. This man cannot get out, nor can his wife, and a Morris Minicar would be a tremendous boon to him.
I have been in contact with the Scottish Office and I am glad to see that the Joint Under-Secretary is present at this debate. Again, however, we have sympathy, but no car. This man cannot ride around on the Minister's sympathy. He wants to ride around in a car. If we have "never had it so good", we ought to give this kind of concession to this kind of person.
Even if all these things were granted, it is little recompense for a life that is blighted before it is forty years old. Mr. and Mrs. Rogers are condemned to a life of hardship, sacrifice and misery. What cannot be a normal, happy married life is now to drag to its interminable end without hope unless the Minister is a little more generous than he has been. I hope that he does not think that I have been carping overmuch. One of the great attributes of this House is that we can raise this kind of case here and I hope that my appeal will not be in vain.

10.16 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): The


hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) has raised this evening a tragic and difficult case, one of the most difficult of the many with which I have had to deal during the two and a half years that I have served in my Department. The hon. Member has done so, I am glad to say, without introducing any drama into the story which he has just told us. Similarly, when we have corresponded, as we have done, over these last months, vie have both been entirely objective and we have found a way of helping the hon. Member's constituent even though it was not to any big extent.
I should like here and now to refute the suggestion that changes and concessions in individual cases of war pensions can be wrung out of us by constant battering. That is not our attitude. We have a certain code to administer, as hon. Members who have served in the Department and have been associated with it know. As far as we are able, however, we try to give men and women the benefit of the doubt and also to help them with their claims. There are, however, certain things that we cannot do, and I hope that what I say to the hon. Member this evening will not leave him with the impression that we are obstinate about this or about other cases
The main principle which is raised by this case is the question of arrears and of the backdating of awards. This always raises difficulty. There are long-standing rules that govern backdating and they are not always fully understood. In consequence, I welcome the chance tonight to try to explain the general principles and to say how they affect this case, which, I admit, is a sad one. Even though many cases of psycho-neurosis have somewhat similar features, this one has a number of quite exceptional features.
First, as to the general principles, in our war pensions code, there is no time limit to a claim which any of us may make to a disability pension or to an appeal against the Department's decision on an entitlement question. The latter point is the one which lies at the back of the hon. Member's main request.
I repeat that we do our best to help every man and woman to receive what he or she may be entitled to. We are ready to act as advisers; we have an active welfare service and we automatically examine the title to pension of

all men who are invalided from the Services. The final obligation to claim a pension or to lodge an appeal rests, however, with the man himself. That is well known in Service and in ex-Service circles.
When making our decisions, we always indicate the clear rights of appeal that a man may have, because the Royal Warrants lay down that a pension is payable from the date of the claim or the date of the successful appeal. The Minister's discretion, to which the hon. Gentleman did refer, is not so very wide nor was it ever intended to be used, I think, except in rare cases. There is a certain discretion, but it was never intended to be of very general application. The sort of circumstance where the Minister would consider payment of arrears are those where prolonged and serious illness has intervened which has prevented a claim or prevented a man from making an appeal. In this connection we must remember, I think, that illnesses of the mind, such as in the particular case of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, do present a particularly difficult question.
In all cases we must remember that the award of a pension depends on medical certification covering the period in question, and must be based on sound evidence in order to be fair as between man and man. We all appreciate, the sad circumstances of many cases of psycho-neurosis and not least this one. However, I do not want to enter into this sort of detail which the hon. Gentleman avoided, and which, I think we would all agree, it would not be helpful to discuss publicly.
On the other hand, I must add a word about the history of this case and give a brief factual history. What the hon. Gentleman is now asking is that the 70 per cent. pension already awarded with, exceptionally, a small amount of arrears shall be back dated still further. Mr. Rogers was invalided in December, 1944. His award of pension was at the rate of 20 per cent. and psycho-neurosis aggravated by service. He was re-hoarded in 1946 and his pension was raised to 30 per cent. He was re-boarded thereafter in 1947, 1949, 1951 and 1953, and the award of 30 per cent. was maintained. The boards in every case excluded nothing; that is to say,


no disablement was offset. He was given a pension for what was believed to be the full extent of his disability. There would have been no difference in the amount of pension paid over that period had the title then been attributability instead of aggravation, a point I did try to make in correspondence with the hon. Member. The way in which the award for aggravation was made did cover the entire condition. The assessment, of course, is to cover the estimated average disablement for an ensuing period. One knows that with this sort of disability there will be marked up and down changes. It is part of the nature of the illness, and whereas one admits that Mr. Rogers was very depressed and very sick at times, at other times he was gallantly and creditably holding down different jobs. There is no doubt at all that there was evidence of deterioration in the winter of 1953–54 when he was admitted to hospital, and while still in hospital he made an appeal on the entitlement issue. That was heard in the spring of the following year, and it succeeded, and the basis of his pension was then altered to attributability.
In May, 1955, he was re-boarded and his condition was assessed at 70 per cent. The British Legion represented that this should be back dated to before the date of the successful appeal, and in fact it was back dated to January, 1954, which was the date of his admission to hospital. This appeared to be the clear point at which it could be said that his condition had deteriorated substantially since the assessment made at the previous board.
Later the hon. Gentleman asked me to look at the case again, which I did, and it seemed reasonable to me, and the doctors confirmed, that we should let the 70 per cent. run from December, 1953, when Mrs. Rogers had approached us about making a deterioration claim. We accepted that, just the same as an approach to a Member of Parliament. We accepted that as being the firm beginning of a claim. What we were trying to do was to recognise that Mr. Roger's condition had deteriorated since the previous board in April, 1953, although we had no evidence what in fact was the rate of deterioration or its progress. None the less, by pushing that assessment back we felt that we were doing

something to recognise that there had been deterioration over that winter.
We cannot reduce medicine to mathematics, and not least when dealing with illnesses of the mind, a field where medical knowledge and experience is far from static, but we should remember that the board of April, 1953, did confirm the 30 per cent. disability which had been agreed by previous boards.
I then said in my letter that I thought that we had done all that we could do, but my right hon. Friend does not want to slam the door on this case. He knows the details of it. I have discussed it with him and he has asked me to say, whilst not making any promise and not raising hopes unduly, that he will look at the case and have it looked at again by our doctors, particularly in the light of the representations made in the House tonight. That is in reference to the first and main point.
As to the constant attendance allowance, the rate is dependent upon medical advice. In February, 1960, Mr. Rogers was medically examined and the view was then expressed that attendance was not necessary. In April, 1960, following, I gather, further black-outs this decision was reviewed and an award was made and it was then back-dated to July, 1959 when Mr. Rogers became 100 per cent. disabled. In passing, the House might like to know that a 30 per cent. consequential disability was accepted with the 70 per cent. disability for psychoneurosis. The date on which we accepted 100 per cent. disability is an important factor in connection with constant attendance.
The hon. Member is suggesting that circumstances today point to justification for a higher rate. I can only say that it would seem fair that Mr. Rogers should be re-examined medically again at an early date. If it emerges from examination that he needs more attendance because of his present condition, a higher rate could be paid, but these assessments are interim assessments based on the medical condition at the time and a fair estimate of the average condition over the ensuing period.
The question of motor transport, as the hon. Member has said, is technically a question for the Scottish Office, and I have been in touch with my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of


State for Scotland. He has asked me to say that Mr. Rogers was examined in September, 1959, in connection with a claim far motor transport. This took place in Edinburgh. At the time the.doctors did not take the view that his disability involved total or almost total loss of the use of both legs, which is the criterion.
This was before the 100 per cent. disability had been accepted, and my hon. Friend has said that it would seem that there is now a case for a further examination. It does not. of course, follow that the increased assessment will necessarily affect the earlier decision, but it would seem fair that Mr. Rogers should be examined again. My hon.

Friend therefore will arrange for a further medical examination at an early date, but on this issue I should not like to raise too great hopes.
I would say seriously to the hon. Member that I appreciate the tragic circumstances of this case and that I have tried to meet them, as the hon. Member has recognised in the kind words to me in some of the correspondence that has flowed between us. He has asked us to seek to lean over backwards. Provided that we can keep our balance, that is what we shall try to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.